Quotes Suitable for Framing: George Will

Tuesday, June 30, AD 2015

3 Responses to Quotes Suitable for Framing: George Will

  • They (academics/ideologues, media cheerleaders, politicians – essential coercion and deceit) will never learn.
    Ideology trumps truth and so there can be no solution or prevention.

    Becuz, socialism’z gon’ta work dis time!

  • Socialism. Coming to a country near you.

  • Democracy is Doomed to Failure
    “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” This quote is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler. In 1814, John Adams said “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit

    What do the Greeks expect? Gone are the frugal and hardworking Greeks that I know – not living in Greece, of course.

PopeWatch: Liberal Catholic

Tuesday, June 30, AD 2015



Over the years PopeWatch has heard time and again from many Catholics that there are no liberal Catholics nor conservative Catholics but merely Catholics.  PopeWatch has never believed this since the evidence to the contrary is so abundant.  PopeWatch would suggest that there are liberal and conservative Catholics and that Pope Francis is an example of a liberal Catholic.  In what way is Pope Francis a liberal Catholic (using “liberal” in the current popular American sense of being on the political left)?

1.  He has a distrust, if not hatred, of markets.

2.  His preferred solution to most problems in this Vale of Tears is to call upon Caesar to find a solution.

3.  He has a great fondness for some sort of world government.

4.  He believes in some of the shibboleths popular on the Left, including that arms merchants start wars, and that rich countries are responsible for poor countries being poor.

5.  He seeks out allies from the loony Left.

6.  He favors stringent regulation and control of economies by governments.

7.  He favors environmental “reform” even if, as he expects, people become materially poorer as a result.

8.  He has a distrust of democracy as democratic states lack long term commitment to the environmental measures that he favors.

9.  His outlook on life is top down with leaders bringing enlightenment to common humanity.

10.The Left, who hated his predecessors, love Pope Francis, who they view as an ally in most of their fights.

Continue reading...

28 Responses to PopeWatch: Liberal Catholic

  • At 7PM last night, 200 mere Catholics met in our parish Church to pray the Rosary for an infant who is direly ill.

    11. He believes we have this one life/world and it is his and the socialist, huge state’s duty to make it better.

    12. He believes the over-large, socialist state needs to reward sin.

    13. He is more concerned about the things of this World than of the rewards of eternal life which Christ purchased for him by His life death and Resurrection. For him the Eternal is not important.

    14. He believes that the corporal works presented in (only) Matthew’s Last Judgment story are accomplished in voting extremist abortion promoters who promise higher taxes for rich people whom they hate and judge as evil.

    15. He counts as virtues hatred and violence they are aimed at rich people who they hate. This is primary for so-called liberation theology.

  • . The Left of course has gradations. Vox Nova website and Catholic Moral Theology website ( social justice left only…not sexual left) loved his predecessors because they maimed the death penalty. Those Popes had to affirm it because of Romans 13:4 so they affirmed it in ccc 2267 and maimed it there by saying that deterrence was complete when you deterred the one murderer out of twenty that you actually caught. The normal world sees deterrence as being about the murderers of the future…deterring them by killing the one you caught. The new Catholic definition of deterrence is deterring the one you caught only. Ludicrous. Pope Francis out did them by saying life sentence is an execution.
    The three men were feminized late in life ( not always for the predecessors) as to mercy in this area in opposition to Scripture…. ” the harshness of a man is better than a woman’s indulgence” Sirach 42:14. Plato describes how a male becomes feminized in Book Three of the Republic…too much culture and too little sports…which describes many in the priesthood and profs in Theology departments. The two safest areas of the world as to murder are East Asia no.1 and Europe no.2. East Asia because it has the death penalty and strong families…Europe because it has few poor people though immigration will change that. The worst areas are Latin America and Africa…1 and 2. Virtually no death penalties in the worst half of Latin America….and many poor people. I’ve had ten encounters with thugs…once escaping four black males in an ATT telephone truck. I’ve never been jumped by a tax attorney or a dentist. It’s always the poor….he kind Europe and Vermont don’t have.
    For my pet issue, all three recent Popes are liberal and Cafeteria about the Scriptures….with a capital C.

  • 16. He uses the language of the left. Scripture and other authority, sometimes, from my reading, is used to support ideology.
    17. He uses the dialectical techniques of the left: straw man, crisis/conflict/compromise, isolation of opposing viewpoints, and disdain for facts especially those at odds with ideology.
    18. I sense a duplicity when looking at his behind the scene machine tins regarding the synod and the disclosures regarding the characters involved with his encyclical.
    19. Like a leftist, he uses a class paradigm ignoring history, tradition and the rich teachings of his predessorrs regarding property, free will, authentic social justice…teachers such as Leo XIII, JOII, Pius X, XI, XIII. This to me is very sad.
    20. This will seem odd but in my view, catechisis seems unimportant and it may be that he is not well informed about teachings contained in the catechism. Eg immigration.
    21. He maintains that material poverty is a prerequisite to Church membership. Christ did nit say to the Centurion seeking to save his servant “empty your pockets first”. Our poverty of spirit is critical and we will be known as Christians by how we serve the Body of Christ including the poor, not by our agreement with the Pope’s malformed reliance on political ideology.

  • I know that the “there are no liberal or conservative Catholics” have GOT to be talking about something, but in practice it seems to be (as you observe) an excuse to elevate their own views to religious authority levels.

  • Bingo. Generally I have found it said among Catholics who adopt a pox on both your houses attitude towards politics and assume that the views of the Pope of the day determine the position of Catholics on all political questions, even if those views contradict longstanding Church teaching.

  • As an orthodox conservative Catholic myself, I find in the Holy Father a style of verbal communication that is confusing and liberal, a style of written communication that is clear and more orthodox than most would have us believe, and on prudential judgment I find him to be liberal and lacking. That results in 2 strikes out of 3.

    However the most crucial and important of these is his writing since from these flow Church teaching.

    Addressing this morning’s post, it would be much more engaging to provide:

    1. Actual examples of the Pope’s words in each of these instances, otherwise it is merely hearsay.

    2. In doing so it should also be pointed out from what source his words flow since an encyclical will carry more weight than an offhand comment to a reporter.

  • “You are either with me, or against Me.”
    That simple clear talk leaves little room for deceitful Godless political agenda’s of the diabolical left in my book.
    God will judge, but we must discern……

  • . The trouble with the completely non critical (of the present Pope) Catholic writers ( e.g. Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea) is that they can’t cause growth in the Church or in people in those areas where they submit inordinately. It also means in other times they would have assented to Pope decisions that current Popes and they themselves now abhor….burning heretics ( Innocent IV in 1253 and Leo X in 1520 inter alia)….and enslaving and despoiling resistant natives in the newly discovered lands ( Nicholas V in Romanus Pontifex 1454..mid 4th large paragraph).

  • Looking for the silver lining, I’m getting lots of chances to explain the difference between binding and non-binding teachings, and I’m running into some awesome blogs! Like this guy doing the “neither left nor right” thing quite well at the Catholic Geeks group-blog. (Biggest problem? No Treebeard quote. *grin* )

  • The Pope strikes me as a variant of the modal clerical type in our time. Catholic, oldline protestant, or evangelical, you see these types. It’s just that their idiom and aesthetic varies. You talk to them and discover they’re pretty shifty and for all their years of schooling never display any trace of erudition. They cannot repair any problems in their congregations and do not seem to want to. For all that they confront people’s problems every day, none seem to have any of what Thomas Sowell calls ‘the tragic vision’ or ‘the constrained vision’. I think it will be many generations before these shallow and silly clerics are displaced. A while back, Fr. Paul Mankowski offered that the early 20th century clergy in the occidental world may have been the most committed and diligent since the end of the early Church. It’s amazing how rapidly the whole edifice collapsed.

  • using “liberal” in the current popular American sense of being on the political left

    That is an erroneous way of viewing the Catholic Faith of others i.e. through the lens of American Politics.
    heard time and again from many Catholics that there are no liberal Catholics nor conservative Catholics but merely Catholics.

    And you are right, this is also erroneous. So what is the accurate method of analysis?
    Either one is a faithful Catholic or not.

    Whoever wishes to be saved must, above all, keep the Catholic faith. For unless a person keeps this faith whole and entire, he will undoubtedly be lost for ever [and that includes the Pope] – the beginning of the Athanasian Creed.

  • Your conclusion, Art, reminds me of a recent quote from Robert Royal at theCatholic Thing.org:

    “You have to hand it to the Irish bishops, priests, and religious. It’s not easy to de-Christianize a whole people. Yet they managed, in about a generation, to help detach an almost entirely Catholic population from its 1500-year-old religious and social roots.”

    Apparently it’s more common than we thought to witness such a wholesale collapse of Catholic institutions.

  • “Liberalism is a sin.” Paul W. Primavera

    Brevity is the soul of wit.

  • “1. Actual examples of the Pope’s words in each of these instances, otherwise it is merely hearsay.”

    “1. He has a distrust, if not hatred, of markets.”

    56. In the meantime, economic powers continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain, which fail to take the context into account, let alone the effects on human dignity and the natural environment. Here we see how environmental deterioration and human and ethical degradation are closely linked. Many people will deny doing anything wrong because distractions constantly dull our consciousness of just how limited and finite our world really is. As a result, “whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenceless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule”.[33]

    “2. His preferred solution to most problems in this Vale of Tears is to call upon Caesar to find a solution.”

    177. Given the real potential for a misuse of human abilities, individual states can no longer ignore their responsibility for planning, coordination, oversight and enforcement within their respective borders. How can a society plan and protect its future amid constantly developing technological innovations? One authoritative source of oversight and coordination is the law, which lays down rules for admissible conduct in the light of the common good. The limits which a healthy, mature and sovereign society must impose are those related to foresight and security, regulatory norms, timely enforcement, the elimination of corruption, effective responses to undesired side-effects of production processes, and appropriate intervention where potential or uncertain risks are involved. There is a growing jurisprudence dealing with the reduction of pollution by business activities. But political and institutional frameworks do not exist simply to avoid bad practice, but also to promote best practice, to stimulate creativity in seeking new solutions and to encourage individual or group initiatives.

    “3. He has a great fondness for some sort of world government.”

    174. Let us also mention the system of governance of the oceans. International and regional conventions do exist, but fragmentation and the lack of strict mechanisms of regulation, control and penalization end up undermining these efforts. The growing problem of marine waste and the protection of the open seas represent particular challenges. What is needed, in effect, is an agreement on systems of governance for the whole range of so-called “global commons”.

    175. The same mindset which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty. A more responsible overall approach is needed to deal with both problems: the reduction of pollution and the development of poorer countries and regions. The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions. As Benedict XVI has affirmed in continuity with the social teaching of the Church: “To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago”.[129] Diplomacy also takes on new importance in the work of developing international strategies which can anticipate serious problems affecting us all.

    “4. He believes in some of the shibboleths popular on the Left, including that arms merchants start wars, and that rich countries are responsible for poor countries being poor.”

    51. Inequity affects not only individuals but entire countries; it compels us to consider an ethics of international relations. A true “ecological debt” exists, particularly between the global north and south, connected to commercial imbalances with effects on the environment, and the disproportionate use of natural resources by certain countries over long periods of time. The export of raw materials to satisfy markets in the industrialized north has caused harm locally, as for example in mercury pollution in gold mining or sulphur dioxide pollution in copper mining. There is a pressing need to calculate the use of environmental space throughout the world for depositing gas residues which have been accumulating for two centuries and have created a situation which currently affects all the countries of the world. The warming caused by huge consumption on the part of some rich countries has repercussions on the poorest areas of the world, especially Africa, where a rise in temperature, together with drought, has proved devastating for farming. There is also the damage caused by the export of solid waste and toxic liquids to developing countries, and by the pollution produced by companies which operate in less developed countries in ways they could never do at home, in the countries in which they raise their capital: “We note that often the businesses which operate this way are multinationals. They do here what they would never do in developed countries or the so-called first world. Generally, after ceasing their activity and withdrawing, they leave behind great human and environmental liabilities such as unemployment, abandoned towns, the depletion of natural reserves, deforestation, the impoverishment of agriculture and local stock breeding, open pits, riven hills, polluted rivers and a handful of social works which are no longer sustainable”.[30]

  • Thanks for those quotes, Don. At least that gets them out on the table for discussion, rather than discussing the Pope’s words in the abstract.

  • “5. He seeks out allies from the loony Left.”


    “6. He favors stringent regulation and control of economies by governments.”

    Civil authorities have the right and duty to adopt clear and firm measures in support of small producers and differentiated production. To ensure economic freedom from which all can effectively benefit, restraints occasionally have to be imposed on those possessing greater resources and financial power. To claim economic freedom while real conditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to practise a doublespeak which brings politics into disrepute. Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good.

    183. Environmental impact assessment should not come after the drawing up of a business proposition or the proposal of a particular policy, plan or programme. It should be part of the process from the beginning, and be carried out in a way which is interdisciplinary, transparent and free of all economic or political pressure. It should be linked to a study of working conditions and possible effects on people’s physical and mental health, on the local economy and on public safety. Economic returns can thus be forecast more realistically, taking into account potential scenarios and the eventual need for further investment to correct possible undesired effects. A consensus should always be reached between the different stakeholders, who can offer a variety of approaches, solutions and alternatives. The local population should have a special place at the table; they are concerned about their own future and that of their children, and can consider goals transcending immediate economic interest. We need to stop thinking in terms of “interventions” to save the environment in favour of policies developed and debated by all interested parties. The participation of the latter also entails being fully informed about such projects and their different risks and possibilities; this includes not just preliminary decisions but also various follow-up activities and continued monitoring. Honesty and truth are needed in scientific and political discussions; these should not be limited to the issue of whether or not a particular project is permitted by law.

    184. In the face of possible risks to the environment which may affect the common good now and in the future, decisions must be made “based on a comparison of the risks and benefits foreseen for the various possible alternatives”.[131] This is especially the case when a project may lead to a greater use of natural resources, higher levels of emission or discharge, an increase of refuse, or significant changes to the landscape, the habitats of protected species or public spaces. Some projects, if insufficiently studied, can profoundly affect the quality of life of an area due to very different factors such as unforeseen noise pollution, the shrinking of visual horizons, the loss of cultural values, or the effects of nuclear energy use. The culture of consumerism, which prioritizes short-term gain and private interest, can make it easy to rubber-stamp authorizations or to conceal information.

    185. In any discussion about a proposed venture, a number of questions need to be asked in order to discern whether or not it will contribute to genuine integral development. What will it accomplish? Why? Where? When? How? For whom? What are the risks? What are the costs? Who will pay those costs and how? In this discernment, some questions must have higher priority. For example, we know that water is a scarce and indispensable resource and a fundamental right which conditions the exercise of other human rights. This indisputable fact overrides any other assessment of environmental impact on a region.

    189. Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy. Today, in view of the common good, there is urgent need for politics and economics to enter into a frank dialogue in the service of life, especially human life. Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price, foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms the absolute power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises after a slow, costly and only apparent recovery. The financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an opportunity to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of regulating speculative financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not include rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world. Production is not always rational, and is usually tied to economic variables which assign to products a value that does not necessarily correspond to their real worth. This frequently leads to an overproduction of some commodities, with unnecessary impact on the environment and with negative results on regional economies.[133] The financial bubble also tends to be a productive bubble. The problem of the real economy is not confronted with vigour, yet it is the real economy which makes diversification and improvement in production possible, helps companies to function well, and enables small and medium businesses to develop and create employment.

    “7. He favors environmental “reform” even if, as he expects, people become materially poorer as a result.”

    193. In any event, if in some cases sustainable development were to involve new forms of growth, then in other cases, given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades, we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing our steps before it is too late. We know how unsustainable is the behaviour of those who constantly consume and destroy, while others are not yet able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity. That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth. Benedict XVI has said that “technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency”.[135]

    “8. He has a distrust of democracy as democratic states lack long term commitment to the environmental measures that he favors.”

    178. A politics concerned with immediate results, supported by consumerist sectors of the population, is driven to produce short-term growth. In response to electoral interests, governments are reluctant to upset the public with measures which could affect the level of consumption or create risks for foreign investment. The myopia of power politics delays the inclusion of a far-sighted environmental agenda within the overall agenda of governments. Thus we forget that “time is greater than space”,[130] that we are always more effective when we generate processes rather than holding on to positions of power. True statecraft is manifest when, in difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the long-term common good. Political powers do not find it easy to assume this duty in the work of nation-building.
    181. Here, continuity is essential, because policies related to climate change and environmental protection cannot be altered with every change of government. Results take time and demand immediate outlays which may not produce tangible effects within any one government’s term. That is why, in the absence of pressure from the public and from civic institutions, political authorities will always be reluctant to intervene, all the more when urgent needs must be met. To take up these responsibilities and the costs they entail, politicians will inevitably clash with the mindset of short-term gain and results which dominates present-day economics and politics. But if they are courageous, they will attest to their God-given dignity and leave behind a testimony of selfless responsibility. A healthy politics is sorely needed, capable of reforming and coordinating institutions, promoting best practices and overcoming undue pressure and bureaucratic inertia. It should be added, though, that even the best mechanisms can break down when there are no worthy goals and values, or a genuine and profound humanism to serve as the basis of a noble and generous society.

    9. His outlook on life is top down with leaders bringing enlightenment to common humanity.
    175. The same mindset which stands in the way of making radical decisions to reverse the trend of global warming also stands in the way of achieving the goal of eliminating poverty. A more responsible overall approach is needed to deal with both problems: the reduction of pollution and the development of poorer countries and regions. The twenty-first century, while maintaining systems of governance inherited from the past, is witnessing a weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic and financial sectors, being transnational, tends to prevail over the political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and empowered to impose sanctions.

    “10.The Left, who hated his predecessors, love Pope Francis, who they view as an ally in most of their fights.”


  • “That is an erroneous way of viewing the Catholic Faith of others i.e. through the lens of American Politics.”

    The usage is American, not the politics. It is my contention that what often people claim to be Catholicism is actually their political preferences wearing a thin disguise.

  • Excellent work, Pope Watch. A break is deserved.

    In 1900, Argentina had the world’s seventh largest economy. Poland did not exist as an independent nation.

    The territory that became the Republic of Poland was wrecked in WW1. Argentina sat it out.

    Poland was invaded,devastated, lost almost six million of its citizens and STILL fought the Germans. Argentina provided a place to escape for Nazis, among them Mengele and Eichmann.

    In the 1950s Argentina elected the Perons, the greatest demagogues of Latin America. They wrecked the Argentine economy in the name of the poor.

    Poland has had a market economy only since 1989. Poland lost territory, citizens and its freedom. Yet today, Poland has the world’s 18th largest economy and has a higher per capita income than Argentina.

    Poland does not have gay marriage or abortion. Argentina? Guess!

    The Roman Pontiff is a captive of his upbringing and his environment (Yankees – bad). His encyclical is a dead letter to me. His political views are nonsense to me. I should pray more for him because we are stuck with him until God decides otherwise.

  • PF (oops I mean that not as a pejorative so henceforth Penguins Fan) — interesting quick history and comparison. Thx.

  • @Donald R. McClarey: Clarification understood.

  • Cthemfly25 —

    very good :
    17. He uses the dialectical techniques of the left: straw man, crisis/conflict/compromise, isolation of opposing viewpoints, and disdain for facts especially those at odds with ideology.

    all the other points too Donald , T. Shaw and C them fly

  • It is very easy to find scathing attacks on capitalism from the Right. The French Catholic Counter-Revolutionaries, Joseph de Maistre, Bonald and Chateaubriand are full of it.
    A fine example in English is from the staunch High Tory, Dr Johnson:
    “In the Islands, as in most other places, the inhabitants are of different rank, and one does not encroach here upon another. Where there is no commerce nor manufacture, he that is born poor can scarcely become rich; and if none are able to buy estates, he that is born to land cannot annihilate his family by selling it. This was once the state of these countries. Perhaps there is no example, till within a century and half, of any family whose estate was alienated otherwise than by violence or forfeiture. Since money has been brought amongst them, they have found, like others, the art of spending more than they receive; and I saw with grief the chief of a very ancient clan, whose Island was condemned by law to be sold for the satisfaction of his creditors.
    The name of highest dignity is Laird, of which there are in the extensive Isle of Sky only three, Macdonald, Macleod, and Mackinnon. The Laird is the original owner of the land, whose natural power must be very great, where no man lives but by agriculture; and where the produce of the land is not conveyed through the labyrinths of traffick, but passes directly from the hand that gathers it to the mouth that eats it. The Laird has all those in his power that live upon his farms. Kings can, for the most part, only exalt or degrade. The Laird at pleasure can feed or starve, can give bread, or withold it. This inherent power was yet strengthened by the kindness of consanguinity, and the reverence of patriarchal authority. The Laird was the father of the Clan, and his tenants commonly bore his name. And to these principles of original command was added, for many ages, an exclusive right of legal jurisdiction.
    This multifarious, and extensive obligation operated with force scarcely credible. Every duty, moral or political, was absorbed in affection and adherence to the Chief. Not many years have passed since the clans knew no law but the Laird’s will. He told them to whom they should be friends or enemies, what King they should obey, and what religion they should profess.”
    As Lord Acton has pointed out, no better protection against tyrannical government, whether of kings or mobs, has ever existed.

  • Is Pope Francis Catholic? As appropriate.

    Is Pope Francis Socialist? Unquestionably.

    Is Pope Francis political? Yes

    Please feel free to add to the list.

  • Great history of Argentina v. Poland PF

    “The Roman Pontiff is a captive of his upbringing and his environment (Yankees – bad).”
    Very true

    “His encyclical is a dead letter to me.”
    Well, not to me, but I’ll have to be discerning about it.

    “His political views are nonsense to me.”
    Agreed, mostly. He is on the money with totalitarianism, but not with its camouflaged lite versions like Peronism, and he doesn’t see the conflict there. Worse are his economic views.

    “I should pray more for him because we are stuck with him until God decides otherwise.”
    Agreed. Or until he decides otherwise. Benedict may have set a precedent here, although I can’t imagine Francis as quiet in retirement as Benedict has been. He’s much more volatile and impulsive.

  • Art Deco wrote “For all that they [the modal clerical type in our time] confront people’s problems every day, none seem to have any of what Thomas Sowell calls ‘the tragic vision’ or ‘the constrained vision’. I think it will be many generations before these shallow and silly clerics are displaced”

    They cannot be displaced as long as our non-tragic civilization exists. No civilization has ever been as materially successful as ours, and these clerics despite their cries against ‘materialism’ love it as much as the rest of us. Only a reversion to 19th century conditions and longevity will displace them.

  • Cthemfly25 – no problem.

    For quite a long time, the Church hierarchy has not known exactly what to make of changing political and economic trends. The Church has been present in Latin America since Columbus landed in Cuba. However, the Church has not had the influence in Latin America that many outsiders think it has or had. When the independence movement began in Spanish Latin America, the Church hierarchy usually sided with the Spanish crown. The caudillos hare never been friends of the Church.

    The Church hierarchy usually has little understanding of a free market economy. Capitalism is a term coined by Karl Marx, who was an idiot who should have been forgotten before he died. In a free market economy there are always some losers, but in a well functioning economy opportunities emerge to enable people to escalate their standards of living. When the Church hierarchy is stuck in an agrarian/mercantile way of thinking, problems ensue.

    Pollution is worst in poorest countries. They usually lack the political backbone to enforce laws or just don’t care. Poorest countries tend to be the most corrupt.

    Argentina is a country that considers ownership of land with prestige and the highest rank in class. In the USA, one can become a millionaire and rent an apartment. This concept doesn’t exist in Argentina.

    We in the US and Canada share this hemisphere with Latin America but there is a massive gulf between us in so many ways, including in the Church. Outside of Quebec and some pockets in the USA, the North American Church is an immigrant Church. North America has never been run by caudillos, though Obumbler comes close and so did FDR. We usually produced enough or more than enough priests and nuns until about 40 years ago.

    The Latin American Church often found itself as a target of the caudillos. It opposed independence at the start. It often relied upon Spanish and Portugese priests. The Left in Latin America often attacked the Church as an enemy due to its property holdings, most of which were granted by the Spanish crown.

    Note the History Channel miniseries The Men who Built America. Latin America has not produced a Carnegie (I know he was born in Scotland) or a Westinghouse or an Edison or Rockefeller or a Ford or attracted a Tesla. The Church has not been as influential as it has been in Poland where it was a guiding light during the dark days of partition, occupation and Communist repression.

    Latin America is a mess and I say that charitably. Violence, poverty and corruption are the norms in most Latin American countries, along with blaming Uncle Sam by their educated elite.

    We see this in our current Roman Pontiff.

  • When looking at the rôle of the church in Latin America, we should remember the model society created in the Jesuit Reductions, most famously in Paraguay, but also in the Argentine, Bolivia, Brazil and Uruguay. Most people will be familiar with Montesquieu’s praise of them in his L’Esprit des Lois, as did Rousseau applauded a society from which money was banished. Voltaire has an amusing depiction of them in Candide.

Gay Marriage and the Hand of God

Tuesday, June 30, AD 2015

She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

Protestant historian and essayist Thomas Babington Macaulay on the Catholic Church




I am always reluctant to see the hand of God in human affairs.  I think there is much wisdom in this observation about God by Lincoln in his Second Inaugural:  The Almighty has His own purposes.   However, it is striking that Christian churches that embrace the evil Zeitgeist of today on abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage and other issues, swiftly see their numbers diminishing and their churches heading to extinction.  David French at National Review Online looks at this phenomenon:

In previous pieces, I’ve amply documented the decline and fall of the Protestant Mainline, those churches — like the United Churches of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (USA) — that abandoned biblical orthodoxy decades ago, in the name of cultural relevance and “inclusion.” Some are declining so precipitously that they may cease to exist within a generation. Already we’re seeing similar signs of decline in those Evangelical churches that are abandoning biblical truth on questions of sex, family, and marriage.


The day before the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Nashville Scene — a local alternative paper — ran a long, gauzy profile of Pastor Stan Mitchell and GracePointe, a Tennessee church that’s done exactly what the culture demands and embraced same-sex marriage. In the midst of the lengthy ode to his courage, this small paragraph of truth stood out: 

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Gay Marriage and the Hand of God

Fortnight for Freedom: Bishop Sheen-Life of Abraham Lincoln

Tuesday, June 30, AD 2015

Fortnight For Freedom 2015

In our current struggle in this country for freedom, it is good to recall champions of it.  Two names stand above all others:  George Washington and Abraham Lincoln

In that regard,  Bishop Sheen retold the life of Abraham Lincoln on his television show.  Originally broadcast in 1954, it is an interesting take on the Great Emancipator.  Completely fascinating.  A great tribute by a son of Illinois to the greatest son of Illinois.

As a native of Peoria, Sheen knew that Lincoln re-emerged into political life on October 16, 1854 when he gave a speech in Peoria that attacked the repeal of the Missouri Compromise by Stephen Douglas’ Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Go here to read that speech.  The rest of Lincoln’s political life was set by that speech that catapulted him into the challenge to Douglas for his Senate seat in 1858, and his Presidential campaign against Douglas in 1860.  For Lincoln personally, the Peoria speech was the most significant of his life.

Of course Bishop Sheen did not celebrate Lincoln simply because of his connection with Illinois and Peoria.  In addition to his winning the Civil War and freeing the slaves, Lincoln was also ever a friend to Catholics.

In the 1840s America was beset by a wave of anti-Catholic riots.  An especially violent one occurred in Philadelphia on May 6-8.  These riots laid the seeds for a powerful anti-Catholic movement which became embodied in the years to come in the aptly named Know-Nothing movement.  To many American politicians Catholic-bashing seemed the path to electoral success.

Lincoln made clear where he stood on this issue when he organized a public meeting in Springfield, Illinois on June 12, 1844.  At the meeting he proposed and had the following resolution adopted by the meeting:

“Resolved, That the guarantee of the rights of conscience, as found in our Constitution, is most sacred and inviolable, and one that belongs no less to the Catholic, than to the Protestant; and that all attempts to abridge or interfere with these rights, either of Catholic or Protestant, directly or indirectly, have our decided disapprobation, and shall ever have our most effective opposition. Resolved, That we reprobate and condemn each and every thing in the Philadelphia riots, and the causes which led to them, from whatever quarter they may have come, which are in conflict with the principles above expressed.”

Lincoln remained true to this belief.  At the height of the political success of the Know-Nothing movement 11 years later, Mr. Lincoln in a letter to his friend Joshua Speed wrote:

“I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it “all men are created equal, except negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read “all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic].”

On July 4, 1864, when Lincoln had much else to occupy his mind, he attended a fundraising for a  Catholic church for Washington blacks.  Lincoln had given permission for the fund raiser to be held on the lawn of the White House.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Fortnight for Freedom: Bishop Sheen-Life of Abraham Lincoln

  • “Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid…”

    How prophetic can one be? Welcome to the same nation after much more degeneracy….

  • Catholics have bought into the lie that one’s “right to conscience” is a sign of freedom. This false teaching is designed by the Devil and got us to where we are today-legalizing sodomite “marriage”. The “Catholic” U.S. hierarchy used this tool of Satan in its “seamless garment” heresy, giving the green light for using contraceptives and having abortions.

  • True freedom exists only when the mind settles on the Truth of God, who is Jesus Christ, and the act conforms to His will.

  • I will steal that opportunity to post ANOTHER awesome Sheen video:

Thoughts on Laudato Si

Monday, June 29, AD 2015

Earlier last week I quipped that the original title of Pope Francis’s latest encyclical was Industrial Society and Its Future. For those who didn’t get the reference, it is the title of the Unabomber Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto. Now I wrote this with tongue firmly planted in cheek, although I am evidently not the only person who made this connection. Though the Pontiff iterates that he is not opposed to technological progress per se, the impression he leaves is that he is not particularly fond of modern society and the advances of the great inventions of the 20th and 21st century.

In this he’s not entirely alone. Who hasn’t complained about the ways people bury themselves in their phones, failing to interact with those around them? But he goes far beyond such laments and rails against many of the aspects of modern life. What’s more aggravating is the way that he ignores how most of these advances have improved rather than hampered the lives of the poor. More unfortunately, this is a relatively minor failing of the encyclical compared to its other shortcomings.

The overarching defense of the encyclical is that it isn’t just about climate change. The Pope was really aiming his pen in large part at secularist environmentalists and trying to persuade them to encounter the entirety of the Gospel. After all, the Pope definitively defends Church teaching on abortion and family life, pointing out the hypocrisy of greenies who seemingly value plant life over human life.

This is true to an extent. It is not merely a climate change encyclical, and the Pope made an attempt to provide a holistic approach to ecology. As Yuval Levin puts it:

The Pope is trying to hijack the standing and authority (in the eyes of global elites and others) of a left-wing or radical environmentalist agenda to advance a deeply traditional Catholic vision of the human good and to get it a hearing by dressing it up as enlightened ecology.

Sadly the Pope utterly failed in this attempt, and that leads me to my fundamental criticism. The encyclical is a rather bifurcated document. The Pope generally relies on secularist language in attempt to talk, as it were, to the whole world. Then the Pope scatters in theological references. At no point, though, does he integrate the theological and the secular. What we’re left with is an encyclical that simultaneously treats the secular audience too softly and too hard. Too softly in that he is reluctant to boldly preach the Gospel message to them to convince them of the right approach to acting more ethically, and yet too hard because where he does attempt to defend traditional Church teaching, he does so in an abrupt, unconvincing manner. Calling out the hypocrisy of supporting environmental reform while also defending abortion rights is all well and good, but the Pope fails to elaborate on this. He doesn’t substantively rely on the rich teachings of the Church that date back two thousand years. He just makes a declarative statement that this attitude is incongruous and then moves on.

That this approach is doomed to failure is witnessed in the very first comment to the post linked at the beginning of this post.

If the pope wants to fight climate change he could start by allowing contraception.

Clearly the parts of this encyclical that we’re supposed to have cheered on didn’t reach this person.

Now it will be said that the Pope is not at fault because either the media under-reported these aspects of the encyclical or the audience simply rejected it. Sorry, but more than after two years into his Pontificate if he’s unaware of how his words will be used, then the Pope is not a particularly wise man. Furthermore, if he’s going to make a moral case against abortion and birth control, he has to try a little bit harder than he did on these pages. Considering how repetitive and long-winded the rest of the encyclical is, he surely could have edited down elsewhere to make room for more detailed apologetics on these issues. He did not, though, and he is primarily responsibile for this failure to connect.

And that’s a core issue with this Pope’s style: it’s one that is necessarily going to sway the people he’s trying to sway. Just as he is doomed to fail to convince the secularists, his method of dealing with economics is just as awkward and off-putting. He presents a rather black and white worldview with the ever put upon poor on one side, and a group of Snidely Whiplash-like cartoon capitalists on the other, twirling their mustaches and cooking up schemes to make the poor even poorer. Actually, there might be a third group: uncaring bumpkins sitting in their air conditioned homes with the eyes locked onto their mobile devices.

What’s funny about this rather strawman-laden document (which incidentally reads as though sections were written by the blogger formerly known as Morning’s Minion) is that he chides the ivory tower intellectuals who don’t really interact with the real world, and who form opinions without truly understanding what people are going through on a day-to-day basis. Now it’s true that perhaps Americans and others in the west can’t relate to some of the abysmal conditions existing in other parts of the world, and thus we might tend to ignore or shrug off as exaggerated some of the Pope’s lamentations. At the same time, the Pope himself has lived in his own sort of bubble. Having lived his entire life in an economic basket case he can’t totally be faulted for criticizing the current economic system. Yet these experiences have perhaps inoculated him from forming a more accurate picture of the world and how economic and technological progress has vastly improved the lot of much of humanity. Thus he has formed a rather simplistic view of capitalism. Sadly, this leads to a simplistic, meandering, and ultimately worthless document.

Coda: I wrote this blog and had it set to post last Friday, but then the Supreme Court decision came down and decided to hold off. Part of me thought of completely deleting the post because it seemed other issues were more pressing. Ultimately that’s why I decided to publish this: it’s even more evidence of the Pope’s bad judgment. With all that is happening in the world, this is what he chooses to write a long-winded encyclical about? This is what he’s throwing the full p.r. machine of the Vatican into? I’m not normally one for suggesting that Pope can’t write about certain subjects due to the severity of other issues. Metaphorically speaking Popes ought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. And the Pope can’t drop everything for American political events. But it’s not just America that is being impacted by these cultural shifts.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Thoughts on Laudato Si

  • . Th Supreme Court ruled today that the EPA cannot order industries to reduce emissions while giving no attention to costs being exorbitant to the industry. It was close …5 to 4. Utilities were vindicated in their complaint. The ruling could be eventually overturned by a world government envisioned by several Popes. But since Islam has a major and eternal stake in fossil fuel, I think they would prevent such a world government by simply witholding assent from Indonesia to the Sudan.

  • Excellent post, PZ.

  • “…while giving no attention to costs being exorbitant to the industry….

    I wish that they had also considered costs when they stuck the American people with Obamacare (Thanks in no small part to the bishops pushing Stupak to stop blocking the neck of the funnel in his committee)

  • Good analysis PZ. There is something perfidious about thie letter. It begins with several falsehoods, misuses scriptural citations, calls for dialogue while demeaning those who disagree with the hoax, and reads just as you describe. Papal apologists demand that we surrender reason and listen to their frequent nonsensical exculpatories. I read the encyclical’s references to actual Church doctrine differently. I believe that the intent of the letter is to raise the ecological “crisis” to the level of Christian persecution and abortion by lacing this poison with doctrinal nods. The Vatican has aligned itself with people possessed by hate filled ideology to advance the actual agenda of this letter. It’s a simple principle, so I thought, that you cannot do good by cooperation with evil, by stating as a premise a lie about science, by deprecating those who disagree.

  • I think the Pope is very limited, and I suspect that some may have gently tried to foster insight, but that’s the thing about being a person with limitations. Few such are aware of them. That’s why I continue to hope that the ultimate impact of this Papacy will be limited. Mere celebrities never make lasting changes. That’s what separates great men from celebrities.

  • Thanks PZ. Good summary. Thankfully Laudauto Si has not been mentioned at the parish I attend. Writing this controversial and socialist document was a bad move and will only further diminish his credibility which, when all is considered, is not such a bad thing.

  • Good post PZ!

  • Joe, care to explain how critiquing a Pope’s non-infallible views on science, government policy and the environment has anything to do with being a Cafeteria Catholic? When a Pope condemns abortion he is citing a moral teaching that goes back to the time of Christ, and he has the full strength of his office behind him. When he ventures his opinion on the best means to preserve the environment he is asserting his own personal opinion, of no greater intrinsic merit than my opinion or yours.

  • Sorry Donald, I pegged Joe’s comment as spam as no doubt he’s a drive-by troll. For those who didn’t see it, he made some comment about cafeteria Catholicism. Yawn.

PopeWatch: Priorities

Monday, June 29, AD 2015

Here is the response thus far of Pope Francis in regard to the United States Supreme Court mandating gay marriage:


In other news, the Pope has appointed Left wing activist Naomi Klein to co-chair a Vatican conference on the environment.  Klein views climate change as an opportunity to ditch capitalism:

Klein is likely to be a highly controversial choice as co-chair, not only because it is unusual to see a non-religious figure leading sessions in the Vatican, but because she is staunchly socialist in her outlook: her most recent book is entitled This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.

In it, she insists that the only way to save the planet from annihilation by climate change is to abandon capitalism. “In order for us to make the kind of progress we need to make in the short amount of time we have left we must confront the reigning, unquestioned ideology that sees privatization as always good, and doesn’t question the logic of austerity, doesn’t question the logic of pro-corporate, free trade deals that have stood in the way of progress on climate,” she told Macleans last year.

“That’s not necessarily the most popular message. But emissions are up 61 percent since we started trying to fix this problem in the early 1990s. Obviously, that strategy isn’t working.”

Her views chime with those of the Pope, who used the 180-page encyclical to call on rich countries to hand over large sums of money to poor countries as payment for their “grave social debt”.

“The foreign debt of poor countries has become a way of controlling them, yet this is not the case where ecological debt is concerned,” Francis wrote. “In different ways, developing countries, where the most important reserves of the biosphere are found, continue to fuel the development of richer countries at the cost of their own present and future.

“The developed countries ought to help pay this debt by significantly limiting their consumption of non-renewable energy and by assisting poorer countries to support policies and programmes of sustainable development.”

Klein has praised the Pope for that stance, telling the Observer: “The fact that they invited me indicates they’re not backing down from the fight. A lot of people have patted the pope on the head, but said he’s wrong on the economics. I think he’s right on the economics.”

She added that the Pope’s unique position as a “moral voice” gave him leverage to unite campaigners fighting for a common goal. “The holistic view of the encyclical should be a catalyst to bring together the twin economic and climate crises, instead of treating them separately,” she said.

And she tacitly accused his detractors of racism, suggesting that the Pope was being opposed on the economic arguments because he’s from the Southern hemisphere, saying: “There are a lot of people who are having a lot of trouble in realising there is a voice with such global authority from the global south. That’s why we’re getting this condescending view, of ‘leave the economics to us’,”

Unfortunately for Klein (and the Pope), her writing makes it clear that she has little grasp of basic concepts used in science such as cause and effect or numbers. Four years ago she attended the Heartland Institute’s climate conference in order to critique it.

The Australian climate blogger Jo Nova quickly and comprehensively destroyed her critique, however, saying: “Naomi Klein was the wrong person to send to a heavy-weight science conference  — in “Capitalism vs Climate” she notices hundreds of details, but they’re all the wrong ones.

“The lights are on and no brain is home.  Unpack the loquacious pencraft and we wallow in innumerate arguments that confuse cause and effect, peppered with petulant name-calling. She can throw stones, but she can’t count past “one”.”

Continue reading...

24 Responses to PopeWatch: Priorities

  • If arms dealers (not so much the users) are evil because they provide the means for evil doers to do their evil, then one has to at least consider the same concept as a result of this “Green (red) encyclical. It is Marxists and radicals of all types that see this as ammunition to be used for their evil.
    Such lack of consideration for who are its appointed and empowered “advocates,” “trustees” and salespeople, “in view of the inevitable and obvious misuse to come, raises serious doubts about its efficacy for good.
    If ammunition creators are wrong to provide weapons for evil then such should also apply to poorly thought out Green (red)encyclicals.

  • In the encyclical the Pope calls for dialogue and we see rather a hard driven agenda on disply heading into the December summit. Heading to the October Synod, the Pope calls for an open dialogue while appointing Kasperites as advisors and bishops. I see a pattern. He loads the issue in accordance with his motives while attempting to appear conciliatory. Personally, I prefer and expect candor in a Pope or cleric…..but I’m a bit old fashioned, dare I say orthodox, in my sensibilities.

  • I’m sensing Klein is not buying the dip in the stock market this week caused by Greece faultering.
    Don’t call in for your 401K balance for maybe a few weeks. It’s going to dip. I went to 40% cash last Thursday to buy the dip. Art Deco said it more eloquently the other day. I’ll be rude. The clergy never had to show a profit in a real job for five years of their life…they live by donations unless they write. If Francis was losing parishioners in Argentina, he still had a salary and a roof. If a bakery in Argentina was losing customers, the baker really loses. The clergy doesn’t really lose.
    In fact losing parishioners may mean you and the hundred left are the remnant….the eight people on the ark. Failure can be success in the spiritual world or can be called that. The baker can’t claim that if he loses bread customers.
    Klein sold a book. That’s capitallism. Someone started that book making company by perhaps borrowing capital and paying back that loan by selling Klein’s book. Capitalism is normal commerce.
    It’s nature. It can be sinned against as when bad mortgages and good mortgages were bundled together in 2007 in derivatives that were falsely sold with high ratings. But that was not capitalism. That was its abuse. Tyson was not boxing when he bit Holyfield’s ear off. That was the abuse of boxing. Klein should be fighting the abuses of capitalism…not capitalism which is nature. People are fleeing into capitalist countries…poor people are fleeing towards us….not away….and from about five nominally Catholic countries that are limping. Maybe Pope Francis should be writing an encyclical on why countries on the Catholic continent are limping so much that their poor are trying to get here.

  • Good piece. I read about Heidi, but you gave some more good info. It’s all coming down to a Third World shakedown while letting the Germans write their own ticket on morals. Some days it’s tempting to just pack up the blog and pretend this is just a bad dream I’ll wake up from after hibernating.

  • Ecology is basically the study of living things and their environment–thus man and the economic markets he creates are indeed a core aspect of his natural ecology (Did not St. Joseph sell his carpentry work?)
    Market vary–from free, to command (which cause underground black markets)
    The pope seems to have chosen to replicate those command market systems (redistribution by Marxist’s Caesars) that have historically done the worst for the environment while enslaving its people. (I still image those Vopos machine-gunning those little kids )
    The question isn’t so much which market system abuses economics, as it is which market system most abuses people.
    The answer comes down to moral teaching being imbedded–good markets come from good people. Perhaps if the Church focused upon eradicating sin as a priority instead of choosing a failed economic system or playing with science hoaxes, man’s lot here on earth might be bettered.

  • The Pope put in charge of the conference a Canadian journalist with no background in science, technology, or resource economics and whose current employment is writing polemics for The Nation and The Guardian? The Holy See now has a very high Injelitance Quotient. Thanks, Francis.

  • Don? St Pope JPII agrees with you in Centissimus Annus teaching that society and the dignity of the person need a virtuous democratic polity, free markets and associations, and a vigorous Church. He recognized our failings in a free enterprise system but also the evil inherent to a command market, ie socialism and its evil siblings.

  • Thanks Cthemfly. Having a pope agree with my thinking (or vice versa) was once something to help me sleep peacefully. Now I tend to wake often.
    I corrected that Don “?” back to Don L, though I might just consider changing my last name to “?” if the world and the Church keeps going crazy as it has.

  • according to Wikipedia Naomi Kleins grandparents were Communists – until they found out they were the wrong kind. Klein has no scientific degree and no economics degree and no college degree at all.
    I wonder if the secular Klein is not an atheist? Wiki stated that Klein encouraged the deadbeats from the Occupy movement to join the environmental movement. This pope is a real doozy.

  • They will be forced to contort the spin on the imminent decline and fall of two social justice edens (Greece and Puerto Rico) or acknowledge the utter error of such unnecessary, economic Hells.

    Very soon, the Pope and the commie-catholics will be slammed with the anti-efficacy of their socialist/statist/justice credo.

  • That’s why yesterday it was “No pence for Peter!” Sunday for the Shaw. If the parish doesn’t shape up, they’re cut off, too.

  • Yes, I did not pay Peter his pence and have substantially decreased contributions to my parish. I do give now to other, solid Catholic organizations.

  • This is the first time I have not contributed to Peter’s Pence since I became an adult. The total amount raised at my parish was $35.00.

  • Wonder whether the pences are the how the newly appointed personnel are paid. In any case, there are similarities to situations giving rise to the phrase, ‘your tax dollars at work.’

  • Same here Philip. And we will make our decision about the diocesan appeal in due course. We will be giving more to those who serve the Body of Christ and searching for others. Up next and quickly, loss of tax status for not only Church but our many brigades of authentic charity. That will mean a recusant tax for Catholics as we carry on the mission while paying higher taxes than others who give to IRS approved charities. But hey the USCCB loves that income tax and besides….global warming.

  • Thanks for the new word Art Deco. I looked it up. Injelitance

  • It is my understanding that one of the chief Commandments of the Church is to contribute to the support of our pastors.
    Comments here manifest some of the snares laid out for us, and the magnitude and depth of our current crisis. Because of our pastors [including the Pope], it is becoming difficult for us to pray [or end up praying badly] and support them and some of us are succumbing to the temptation and failing to do what is incumbent upon us.
    King David has made a deep impression on me in many ways and example. When anointed but not yet king, he had the opportunity to kill Saul who sought his life despite all David had done for him, yet he did not kill him because Saul was the anointed of the LORD. Let’s do what we ought to do and leave the rest to the LORD, he knows best.

  • We are to contribute to the support of our pastors as they are entitled to pay to meet their needs. This is a basic matter of justice as a worker is entitled to his pay.

    But what if a worker is not doing his job properly? Justice is a two-way street and the employer is entitled to good work. So hat worker in justice is fired. Can one do that with the Church? Of course not. So how does one make one’s voice heard? Remember, we are not passive “pay and pray” figures in the pews. We are rational beings that have dignity also and can voice our disgust with the abuses in the Church – including turning it into a irrational political machine. The most immediate way to do this is through collections.

    If you note also, what is not being funded is Peter’s Pence. This is to fund charitable works of the Pope. This does not pay him and quite possibly no other cleric. I can see the point of Peter’s Pence as there are plenty of charitable works of very deserving people. Now they are getting it directly from me.

    And all through this I pray very faithfully and daily for the Pope and bishops.

    So my conscience is very clear.

  • I have boycotted the annual bishops fund for the poor (which helped Obama’s election via ACORN) and Catholic Relief Service (and their rice bowls) are in the hands of the wrong people.
    I have changed my almsgiving with far more care, and more money.
    I suspect a movement in this direction might get results, but the masses of sheep have little idea what’s going on with our charities or don’t care.
    But, soon the UN or nations will e distributing (after confiscation) whatever we have anyway–to save the planet.

  • When silence can make your day. In my Cathedral parish Peter’s Pence was not mentioned and no collection was taken, Also, Laudato Si has not been mentioned in the pulpit or the parish bulletin.

  • @Phillip: their “employer” is the LORD.
    @Don L: When reports came in regarding CRS [seem to have confirmation after what I have come to learn about Dr. Woo and from her own utterances], and in my parish [and I believe the diocese] the Lenten practices [fasting and almsgivings] contribute to CRS Rice Bowl, I felt uneasy about my family and I contributing to it. What I ended doing was giving our contribution to the parish stating it was from our Lenten practices. What they do with it, they are responsible for it before the LORD.

  • “@Phillip: their “employer” is the LORD.”

    Then he can pay them.

  • Then he can pay them. Not sure whether you intended this to be a “smart-alecky” comment. If you put on a serious hat, you will realise you are throwing this into the LORD’s face and not into me.
    @Phillip: and his command from scripture and via his Church is that the payment comes from the faithful. From your own writing, it ought to be clear what you ought to do, yet you say your conscience is your guide.
    We know what the LORD said about the elders of the people, yet he paid the temple tax [which he was exempt because he was the Son], and recall the poor widow who contributed all she had. According to you, what an opportunity Jesus missed to tell her to keep her money because the elders were not doing their work and did not deserve it.
    You cannot uphold you position from Church teaching and scripture.

  • “Not sure whether you intended this to be a “smart-alecky” comment.”
    It was meant in the same tenor as your comment. What was that?
    Payment indeed comes from the faithful but it is for faithful work. If you read my comments not only do I still contribute to my parish (though much reduced and to cover basic costs because there are also many unfaithful activities taking place there and in the diocese) but also to other religious organizations who I believe are being more faithful.

    Also if you read my comments, Peter’s Pence is not about paying clerics but contributing to charitable institutions. I am doing that also as pointed out.

    So not only am I paying for Church upkeep but at the same time choking off unfaithful activities. At the same time I am paying for more faithful Church organizations.

    Thus again, my conscience is clear.

Inside Out

Sunday, June 28, AD 2015

Much of the modern resistance to chastity comes from men’s belief that they “own” their bodies — those vast and perilous estates, pulsating with the energy that made the worlds, in which they find themselves without their consent and from which they are ejected at the pleasure of Another!

CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters



My family and I went to see the new Pixar movie Inside Out on Saturday, and I heartily endorse it.  It is a very funny family comedy which gives a humorous fictional account of how people think and interact with others.  Personifications of our emotions run the show for each person, and the story conceit is well developed.  On one level it can be enjoyed as a kid’s movie, and on another level it is a pretty profound meditation on how complex human thoughts and emotions are, as we attempt to interact with others while barely understanding, at times, the complex factors within us determining our reactions to the outside world.  As usual for Pixar, stay for the ending credits, where you will see funny vignettes.  A good film for the forthcoming holiday weekend.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Inside Out

  • The notion that we “own” our bodies is, indeed, a curious one. Dominus membrorum suorum nemo videtur: no-one is to be regarded as the owner of his own limbs, says Ulpian in D.9.2.13. pr.

    To the Roman jurists and the later Civilians, the notion that the body of a free man could be owned seemed absurd, for only things in commerce can be owned. There is the further problem that the relationship between the individual and his body is rather one of identity than possession. The French Civil Code faithfully reproduces this in Article 16 “The human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right,” and “Agreements that have the effect of bestowing a patrimonial value to the human body, its elements or products are void”

    Like the “self,” it is a product of the mind-body dualism of Descartes. The” self,” as Miss Anscombe points out, “is blown up out of a misconstrue of the reflexive pronoun. That it is nonsense comes out also in the following fact: it would be a question what guaranteed that one got hold of the right self, that is, that the self a man called “I” was always connected with him, or was always the man himself. Alternatively, if one said that “the self connected with a man” meant just the one he meant by “I” at any time, whatever self that was, it would be by a mere favour of fate that it had anything else to do with him.”

  • “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife.” 1 Corinthians 7:4

Bear Growls: Her Hotness

Sunday, June 28, AD 2015

12 Responses to Bear Growls: Her Hotness

Quotes Suitable for Framing: Mario Vargas Llosa

Sunday, June 28, AD 2015


latin american idiot

He believes that we’re poor because they are rich and vice versa, that history is a successful conspiracy of evil against good, where they always win and we always lose (he is always among the poor victims and the noble losers).  He has no objection to surfing through cyberspace and being on-line, while at the same time-without realizing the contradiction-loathing consumerism.  When he speaks of culture he boasts, “What I know I learned from life, not from books, so my culture isn’t academic, but pragmatic.”  Who is he?  He is the Latin-American Idiot.

Mario Vargas Llosa, first paragraph of the foreword to Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot by Plinio Apuleyo Mendoza, Carlos Alberto Montaner and Alvaro Vargas Llosa (2001), which is essential reading in the current pontificate.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Quotes Suitable for Framing: Mario Vargas Llosa

  • Vargas Llosa nails it. The problems Latin America faces are of its own making. Those in the USA who are casual observers of Latin America often blame the Catholic Church or Spain or international trade or some other bogeyman, but they do not understand – at all.

    Latin America is blessed with warm weather (most of it) year round. Latin America has abundant fertile land for agriculture and vast natural resources. The landscape is incredibly varied – countless miles of beaches, vast plains, the Andes Mountains, etc.

    Yet Latin America is poor. It has always been such because Latin American countries have lacked the backbone to enforce the rights of property owners, operated substandard educational systems filled with political propaganda and little useful knowledge and simply have been unable to provide the means for poor people to move out of poverty with education, job skills and employment opportunities. Entrpreneurism is a dirty word in Latin America.

    The so-called educated elite of Latin America has always looked longingly at the Left. Wealth redistribution is always seen as the path to greatness. Strong leaders are admired even when they trample on the rights of those who are not in favor.

    The United States is held in contempt, while at the same time countless Latin Americans of all economic and political classes want to come here and stay. When the US gets involved in Latin America, the Latin American Idiot is angry at the US for not minding its own business. When the US minds its own business, the Latin American idiot blames the US for ignoring Latin American problems.

    So much of this book fits the current Roman Pontiff. Add to that – the Roman Pontiff knows what he knows about the US economy from the American bishops and it is no wonder his views are what they are.

  • Another book that will help the readers of TAC understand the mess in Latin America is “The Mystery Of Capital” by Hernando De Soto. He shows that capitalism fails in Latin America because the culture, the laws, and the mentality of the people prevent it from working like it should. Someone should review this book for TAC.

  • Condescending to the max. And you posting it makes it racist. What a good Catholic you are.

  • So let me see James, Latin Americans describing intellectual pathologies popular among elites in Latin America is racist? Thank you for giving a prime example of the intellectual bankruptcy of the true believers of the Left.

  • Get used to being called racist, bigots and hate monger’s. This is what awaits American Catholics that don’t lick the boots of (c)atholics that see no problem with abortion on demand, sodomite marriage or Papal overreach. Defending the Holy Church and dogmas vs. Politics of green movements in the world.

    Welcome to the New World.
    A kinder, more gentle place.
    Oh….Jesus in the Eucharist… Body blood soul and divinity….that’s what those wacko conservative Catholics believe… Symbolic only is what 70 % of Catholics believe.

    Oh boy. What a future ahead.

  • Thus we behold Pope Francis!

  • Latin America is blessed with warm weather (most of it) year round. Latin America has abundant fertile land for agriculture and vast natural resources. The landscape is incredibly varied – countless miles of beaches, vast plains, the Andes Mountains, etc. Yet Latin America is poor.

    “Abundant natural resources” are not an unqualified blessing and are neither a necessary nor sufficient prerequisite for development. El Salvador and Cuba are the only Latin American countries which have an inventory of arable land in proportions that would be about normal in the British Isles or continental Europe (25% to 35% of the total). Conversion of forest land to agricultural uses is not an option throughout broad swaths of Latin America because the nutritional poverty of tropical soils.

    While we’re at it, aggregate standards of living in Latin America are about average for the human race. The place is notable for high crime rates and malintegrated labor markets.

  • Has anyone read “The Jesuits” by Malachi Martin? I’ve heard it will help you understand Francis’s goals.

  • And speaking of what might better be described as left wing idiocy, the Vatican has involved yet another hard core, vile freedom hating leftist to join the occupy Vatican crowd. And I thought the encyclical was an invitation to “dialogue” with differing points of view. You are seeing a modus operandi which bodes poorly for the synod. This excerpt from the Guardian article about the appointment of Naomi Kleine to advance the Pope’s green agenda

    “Naomi Klein and Cardinal Peter Turkson are to lead a high-level conference on the environment, bringing together churchmen, scientists and activists to debate climate change action. Klein, who campaigns for an overhaul of the global financial system to tackle climate change, told the Observer she was surprised but delighted to receive the invitation from Turkson’s office.

    “The fact that they invited me indicates they’re not backing down from the fight. A lot of people have patted the pope on the head, but said he’s wrong on the economics. I think he’s right on the economics,” she said, referring to Pope Francis’s recent publication of an encyclical on the environment.”

  • Art, did someone take a leak in your Wheaties?

    Argentina has the pampas – a vast plains area that is quite suitable for agriculture and raising cattle. You omitted that.

    You make it sound as if there is a deficit of arable land in Latin America. Ain’t the case.

    While Latin America isn’t a poor as much of sub-Saharan Africa or North Korea, it’s still very poor and SHOULD NOT BE POOR. That’s one of the points of Vargas Llosa’s book.

    My wife is from Colombia. She taught English lessons. She saw more poverty in her home city of Cali than you or I have seen in the United States.

  • Argentina has the pampas – a vast plains area that is quite suitable for agriculture and raising cattle. You omitted that.

    About 14% of Argentina land is arable in character. It’s one of the higher shares in Latin America but nowhere near the norms of Britain or continental Europe.

    it’s still very poor

    Brazil has a per capita income about 30% that of the United States. In real terms that’s roughly similar to that in this country ca. 1940. Brazil has a wretchedly skewed income distribution, so a fudge factor might be appropriate to contrive a comparison. The per capita income of the middle 70% of the population of Brazil is roughly characteristic of that in the United States just prior to the Depression (with a very different mix of goods and services, of course). Roughly half of Latin America’s population lives in loci more affluent and roughly half less affluent.


    A bit of wisdom from Thomas Sowell: there is nothing inevitable about progress.


Judicial Retention Elections for Supreme Court Justices

Sunday, June 28, AD 2015



A good idea from Senator Ted Cruz (R.Tx.):

Yet we are a people who believe, in the words of our Declaration of Independence that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations . . . evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security.” In California, the people said enough is enough in 1986, and removed from office three activist justices who had repeatedly contorted the state constitution to effectively outlaw capital punishment, no matter how savage the crime. The people of Nebraska likewise removed a justice who had twice disfigured that state’s constitution to overturn the people’s decision to subject state legislators to term limits. And in 2010, the voters of Iowa removed three justices who had, like the Supreme Court in Obergefell, invented a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Judicial retention elections have worked in states across America; they will work for America. In order to provide the people themselves with a constitutional remedy to the problem of judicial activism and the means for throwing off judicial tyrants, I am proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would subject the justices of the Supreme Court to periodic judicial-retention elections. Every justice, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years. Those justices deemed unfit for retention by both a majority of the American people as a whole and by majorities of the electorates in at least half of the 50 states will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Judicial Retention Elections for Supreme Court Justices

  • I ought to be on my way to Mass now but the only car we have won’t start. Fortunately there is an Enterprise location open nearby on Sunday morning. So, those who bash free market economies can stick it in their ears.

    Lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court have become a fatal flaw of the United States Government. The Founding Fathers desired an independent judiciary, but we don’t have one now and we have not had one for decades, if ever. There ought to be the means available to the American public to remove Supreme Court judges just as there is the means to remove the President and the members of Congress.

    Abortion, busing and homosexual marriage are not enshrined in the Constitution and just because some judges decided they are does not make it so.

  • No use to whine. The degradation of the US began with the women’s vote. Without it we would not have no fault divorce, abortion, huge welfare expenses, homosexual marriage, destruction of the family, two terms of Clinton and two terms of Obama. The women’s vote has negated the male in the body politic and this emasculation has reverberated catastrophically all through our society and will not end. I say this as a man who loves a woman and has been faithfully married for forty years. But think what happens when you pervert the natural order of things. Dads are not Dads anymore – just mules. Little wonder that people speculate about a ‘fear’ of commitment. It is not just our Chuirch that has been feminized.

  • Shawn Marshall- On what principle would you separate political rights such as voting between the genders? What rights are gender specific and what rights aren’t?

  • In theory I suppose judicial retention is a good idea. In practice, not so sure. What makes you think a majority of our fellow citizens would vote to throw a Kennedy or Ginsburg out (the same who kept Obama in)? Maybe the fear of rejection alone would keep these delicate flowers in line?

  • Fear of rejection would do a lot. I think that Kennedy would quickly find out what turncoats usually find out: they have no real friends. Without the support of a party, I think a retention campaign on a nation-wide scale would be impossible for any justice. The argument against this proposal is that it interjects politics into the Supreme Court. Well, if Justices are going to base their rulings on their policy preferences rather than the law, then they need to go to the voters just like everyone else who wishes to see what he favors enacted into law.

  • On 6 September 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, “The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to thirty-four years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form: The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.”

  • Without it we would not have no fault divorce, abortion, huge welfare expenses, homosexual marriage, destruction of the family, two terms of Clinton and two terms of Obama.
    Uh, Shawn, women’s suffrage was instituted generally in 1920 and in select locales as early as 1869. Attributing the gutting of statutory requirements after 1966 to women’s suffrage incorporates an inventive sense of cause and effect, as does the notion that misfeasance in the administration of divorce law by (largely male) judges is attributable to the (female) voting public. All but four attempts to liberalize abortion law in the United States after 1966 failed. The regime in abortion law was instituted by judges – all of them male. The ‘huge welfare expenses’ are primarily to provide economic support to the elderly and disabled, who count among them many men and have as many sons as daughters. Programs targeted at late adolescents with bastard children have seen a rapid decline in their census in recent decades, something not true of Social Security.
    There is certainly a rancid crew of (female) academics and journalists and lawyers who are fanatic on these questions. That has nothing to do with my aunt casting a ballot for Mayor of Peekskill.

  • While we’re at it, Shawn, I think the Mississippi black codes were a pretty degrading piece of legislation. I do not recall women had the vote in Biloxi in 1866.

  • I like Ted Cruz’s solution.

  • I like Ted Cruz’s solution too.

  • I also like the idea. One other option would be to subject SCOTUS justices to reconfirmation every few years.

  • All who defend the “Slouching to Gomorrah” of our nation are free to propose their own analysis. Regretfully, the emotional responses are trite and ill considered. The destruction of our moral bases and the family will continue apace. God made men and women different and He made family. The emasculation of men is not God’s plan.

  • Also regard the solid perversity of all three female members of the Supreme Court – there is no destructive social policy they would not enforce through judiciary activism. And do not forget the tragic disappointment that ‘conservative’ Sandra Day O’Connor was.

  • Shawn- Fine, let’s agree that women’s suffrage has been an unmitigated, absolute disaster. By what principle would you propose isolating gender specific political rights?

  • Folks, no more on women’s suffrage. It is not the cause of our present problems and it has nothing to do with this post. Stay on topic!

  • Shawn Marshall wrote, “God made men and women different”

    But also the same, or we would be speaking of two species. St Augustine, as always, is very good on this: “Some people have suggested that it was now (Gen 1:27) that the human mind [interiorem] was made, while the human body came later, when scripture says, ‘And God fashioned man from the slime of the earth’ (Gen 2:7); so that where it says ‘he made’ (1:26), it refers to the spirit, while ‘he fashioned’ (2:7) refers to the body. But they fail to take into account that male and female could only be made with respect to the body.”
    He explains this further, when he says, “still the woman too, who is female in the body, she too is being renewed in the spirit of her mind, where there is neither male nor female, to the recognition of God according to the image of him who created her. (Rom 12:2, Eph 4:23, Col 3:10, Gal 3:28)”
    Both as a Christian and a Platonist, St Augustine would have rejected the notion of a “female mind” as not so much false as meaningless.

Fortnight For Freedom: Abraham Lincoln on Supreme Court Decisions

Sunday, June 28, AD 2015

Fortnight For Freedom 2015


Some quotes from Abraham Lincoln in how to react to illegitimate Supreme Court decisions.  An illegitimate decision is one in which the Court arrogates to itself the power of a legislature under the mendacious guise of merely interpreting the Constitution:



1.  I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case, upon the parties to a suit; as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government.

2.  Judicial decisions have two uses-first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called “precedents” and “authorities.”

3.  We think its (the Supreme Court) decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution.

4.  At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties, in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.

5.  Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom: Abraham Lincoln on Supreme Court Decisions

  • I was beyond angry when Obama brazenly attacked the SC at his SOTU speech. Now I which he had gone further.

  • Good post. The Dred Scott Justices, the Abortion Justices and the Sodomy Justices will all one day stand before that Supreme Justice from whom there is no escape.

  • This is some more comment re how Lincoln dealt with the S Ct. We appear to going down this road again.

    Honoring the Holy Innocents of America: The American Address

    Catholic Lane July 28,, 2015
    by Guy McClung, J.D., Ph.D.

    The 1857 SupremeCcourt Dred Scott decision said that Dred Scott, his wife, and their unborn child were not human beings, but were property to be bought and sold. Led by proslavery Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court created a new national constitutional right to own slaves. Taney, a Democrat and a Roman Catholic, was born on a tobacco slave plantation, and was a former slave owner.

    Abraham Lincoln rejected the Dred Scott decision and rejected the Court’s ability to declare that certain human beings were subhuman. He denied that the Court could resolve and decide the meaning of the Constitution for the other coequal branches of the government or for all the people. Lincoln considered the Dred Scott decision lawless. He rejected the assumed supremacy of what he saw as a renegade Court, and therefore believed that the decision was non-binding on the executive and legislative branches. President Lincoln and the U.S. Congress, and many of the people, not only defied Taney and the Supreme Court, they refused to obey the decision.

    Their defiance led to the Civil War.

    In the summer of 1863, in the costliest of battles in terms of loss of life, over 50,000 soldiers from both sides died at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Now in America, the number of dead aborted children here exceeds by over a thousand times the number of dead at Gettysburg. Ironically, today the majority of the dead are minority children – over seventeen million of them are African-American – and many of these dead children are descendants of those for whom the Civil War was fought and won. In the Fall of 1863 President Lincoln went to dedicate a cemetery to the dead soldiers of Gettysburg. The words he spoke there have become known as The Gettysburg Address. Here is:

    The American Address

    A dozen score years ago our forefathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, dedicated to the proposition that all men, women and children are created equal; and founded on the principle that they are all endowed, not by any government, not by any Constitution, not by any law, but endowed by their Creator with the inalienable right to life.
    Now we are engaged in a great civil conflict, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met at great battlefields of that conflict, in cities and towns across America, at the killing chambers of Planned Parenthood, and at numerous other death dealers whose business is abortion. We have come to dedicate a portion of these cities as the final resting places of thousands of innocent children who give their tiny lives; we are come to dedicate their unmarked graves, the dumpsters, the toilets, the biological waste incinerators, and the garbage cans that receive them. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

    But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate — we cannot consecrate — we cannot hallow — the ground across America where they have died and where more will die. The children, who struggle, suffer, cry out with silent screams, and die have consecrated this land far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget that the children have been and will continue to be killed here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which the children who die here have thus far so nobly advanced, the work they have begun in their small way, dying with their tiny voices unheard. But we hear them.

    It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead and living unborn children we take increased devotion to that cause for which they give the last full measure of devotion; that we here solemnly vow that no more children’s lives are taken in this Land of Freedom, this Land Of Life . That we here highly resolve that all these children have not died in vain in this American Holocaust– that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, including all the people, even the smallest people now warm and happy within their mothers wombs, that this nation, these people, and these children shall not perish from the earth.

    – See more at: http://www.catholiclane.com/the-american-address/#sthash.zurZ83cD.dpuf

PopeWatch: Drought

Saturday, June 27, AD 2015

8 Responses to PopeWatch: Drought

  • Meanwhile, up in the San Bernardino mountains, the last baptized Christian is quietly building an ark….

  • Meanwhile, up in Napa Valley, descendants of Italian winemakers were gathering to sign a petition to send to Pope Francis, seeking his approval to use wine in place of holy water for baptisms in order that they to be good (wine) stewards and avoid having to deal with those undesirable free wine markets.

  • Since Nancy Pelosi dwells on the “sacred ground of abortion” and as long as her address is California what else is there to say about the drought there. Have the voters kick her out and see what happens.

  • Of course, biblically speaking drought is a punishment for godless behavior (1 Kings 17-18), however it may be that our present pontiff might try to re-write those uncooperative scripture passages into a wacko-eco interpretation..

    This thought is before me all the time in the present waterless, godless wastes of California.. and no end in sight, to either drought.

  • The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plants in California have a solution for the drought problem: nuclear desalination. The largest desalination facility on the west coast of the United States is nuclear powered. Would the Pope accept water for baptism from nuclear energy?
    I love nuclear energy. I despise, loathe, abhor, detest, and hold in utter contempt and disdain Argentinian Marxist Peronism.

  • Let them drink champagne.

  • I’ll drink to that!

  • Of course EOTT is a tongue-in–cheek discourse that tangentially hints at truly possible absurdity. And Jerry Brown, a one-time Jesuit of a few years, is a loon that could possibly do something like this (especially as he bragged at NOT having a shower himself as a model to be followed). He is also the fellow who said anyone who reads medical materials can take the MD boards, and if he passes, can practice medicine. Ah the insanity that is innate in political leaders!!

Fortnight For Freedom: Dixie

Saturday, June 27, AD 2015

Fortnight For Freedom 2015

 I have always thought `Dixie’ one of the best tunes I have ever heard. Our adversaries over the way attempted to appropriate it, but I insisted yesterday that we fairly captured it. [Applause.] I presented the question to the Attorney General, and he gave it as his legal opinion that it is our lawful prize. [Laughter and applause.] I now request the band to favor me with its performance.’”

Abraham Lincoln, requesting the playing of Dixie when a crowd came to the White House after Lee’s Surrender.

Something for the weekend.  Well, after the Confederate flag madness of this week, the only appropriate song is Dixie.  One of Abraham Lincoln’s favorite songs, it now may become an anthem of a new movement against the suffocating political correctness that is threatening the freedom of our land.  Bob Dylan’s rendition of Dixie prior to the world going crazy:

Continue reading...

One Response to Fortnight For Freedom: Dixie

Whining-Defeatism Open Thread

Saturday, June 27, AD 2015


I have little tolerance for whining and defeatism.  However, I suspect that many of our commenters and readers are doubtless distressed by recent events, as am I.  Thus, on this open thread you may, to your hearts content state:   that America is finished, the Church is finished, the anti-Christ is arriving by 6:00 AM CST on Tuesday in Pittsburg, Our Lady told a nun in Kenosha back in 1973 that the world would end in 2020, that the GOP is under the control of the cattle-mutilating Elvis impersonating Masons from Pluto, that secession is our only hope, that acting like Amish is our only hope, that we have no hope, that the barbarians are within the gate, that we have been sold out, that defeat is inevitable, that it is all (insert blank) fault, that pessimists are just too darn optimistic and any other manifestation of gloom, doom, despair and agony that you wish to give vent to.  This is your opportunity on this blog to do so.  The rest of the blog will be for people who have analysis, information and useful suggestions to give, along with the usual humorous asides, and share with John Paul Jones the sentiment:  “I have not yet begun to fight!”

A little mood music to get you started:

Continue reading...

49 Responses to Whining-Defeatism Open Thread

  • I would just say: pray for all seriously Christian bakers, photographers, and wedding related occupation workers who, varying with their concept of cooperation in sin, may have to sell their business rather than e.g. photographing a gay wedding. Television first made fornication humorous for young people…21/2 Men etc….then it made sodomy humorous.
    For those wondering if God strikes such nations in wrath….not til their sin is ” filled up” or “complete”. That’s why Christ said to the Jewish leaders, ” Now fill up the sins of your ancestors .. ” Matt.23:32. Thirty seven years later in 70AD, 1.1 million were killed in Jerusalem ( Josephus…Tacitus gives 600,000) That was the most frightening thing Christ said and I suspect He shouted it. The concept goes back to Gen.15:16 wherein God tells Abraham that the Canaanites will not be driven from Canaan for four hundred years…why?….because God says, ” the wickedness of the Amorites is not yet complete”. Once it is complete or ” filled up” in Christ’s words, wrath approaches but only God knows that completed time span. It could be quick or it could be centuries. He allowed the Amorites to cannabilize their own children for centuries before mandating the Jews to kill them. He gave the Jews over a thousand years of infidelities in idolatry etc. before Christ announces enough….” fill up the sins of your ancestors”.

  • Long ago when faced with similar circumstance, three men refused to bow down before an idolatrous golden image in spite of the fact that everyone else from all nations and languages did so. As I recall, the dear leader who commanded those three men to be executed by immolation declared at the end of this whole episode:
    “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at nought the king’s command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God. Therefore I make a decree: Any people, nation, or language that speaks anything against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego shall be torn limb from limb, and their houses laid in ruins; for there is no other god who is able to deliver in this way.”
    Sodomites, lesbians, baby-murders, adulterers, fornicators, thieves, and liars did not win then in spite of the fiery furnace into which they had thrown those who rejected their idolatry, and will not win now.

  • IN the Department of Justice, the Justices, called “Justices” because they are the personification of God’s perfect Justice, these men and women who are compensated to exemplify and deliver EQUAL JUSTICE have incorporated sodomy as sexual intercourse and delivered “marriage equality” for one man because he has a Fourteenth Amendment right to be free and equal. We, the people asked The Supreme Court for a loaf of bread and were handed a stone.
    The Supreme Court denied the Person of God voice in the public square because the atheist was offended. 60,000,000 souls were scratched for the womb because the Supreme Court redefined the human being as having no rational, immortal human soul with free will, and that the human being was born equal, not created equal. The homosexual sodomite was left out of legitimate sexual intercourse until the Supreme Court redefined sodomy as sexual intercourse, sodomy as the marital act and the anus as a vagina. The Supreme Court gave the sodomite a marriage license but he cannot marry because he cannot perform the marital act.
    The business proprietor was assaulted by the same sex wedding proponents in her presence, but she cannot be offended or assaulted or defend herself or employ self preservation measures because she is owned by the government and their regulations. The Christian business proprietor may not employ self preservation because the Supreme Court runs surety for the same sex couple. The same Supreme Court that says that the anus is a vagina and sodomy is sexual intercourse. Hermaphrodites must decide for themselves, without the Supreme Court. So, if the person’s soul is male, the gender change denies, steals, the maleness from the soul.
    Actually the Supreme Court did not ban the Person of God from the public square, the mass media did bannering PRAYER BAN, when in fact all the Court said was that the atheist “could go her own way”. Red Skelton said : “She is not going to take me with her.” Without God, people are killing, murdering one another. 60,000,000 souls, human souls scratched from the womb, was next on the agenda of EQUAL JUSTICE for the human being from The Supreme Court. Sodomy as sexual intercourse is no big deal, not really. All the judges on the bench deciding “equal marriage” in their total lack of any wisdom for it is the virtue of wisdom that is lacking in their thought. Wisdom is a virtue empowered by grace, and both grace and wisdom are banned for the public square. The judges deciding “equal marriage of sodomy and sexual intercourse” and denying “EQUAL JUSTICE” TO THE PEOPLE, are the epitome of ignorance in their quintessential perjury. Anuses are not vaginas no matter how many 14th Amendments the people may have. Perjury is an untruth in a court of law. (Censored and deleted) probably came into this world through some woman’s anus. It is no small fact that we are here talking about anuses and squatting before tent pegs.
    ACA, the HHS Mandate was added after, AFTER, Congress passed Obamacare, leaving the people without a voice in government. imposing tyranny. Next is not polygamy. Next is worshipping Satan as a goat, the true God as a golden calf and the chicken as a vessel of wisdom. Hillary Clinton has already told us that “Deep seated Cultural Codes, Religious beliefs …have to be changed” and speaking of witches, some years ago the town of Red Bank, New Jersey paid a witch $5,000 to cast a good spell on the town for prosperity. The individual person is empowered by the Holy Spirit to bless and invoke and petition Divine Providence on all and for free. From The Preamble: “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” and for free.
    If the Supreme Court can change perjury into truth, sodomy into the marriage act, the Justices certainly can change tyranny into freedom. We are waiting. Maybe the Supreme Court can change hell into heaven?

  • Whining defeatism?

    Nay – I will not go softly. But we need not be defeatist to be realist, even if we plan to stand defiant. Where I see this going, relatively quickly:

    1. The plural marriage case steaming through the courts will hold in favor of the “big love” family, using reasoning from Windsor and Obergefell.

    2. The ACLU will withdraw reli….wait..they’ve done it – http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html

    3. Any organization, religious or other, with current nonprofit status will be audited to see if they “comply” with Obergefell. The IRS will begin denying tax exemptions religious non-profits from Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish provenance which may refuse to hire, or fire, individuals who are in a gay marriage. Racial non-discrimination norms will be extended to gay marriage.

    4. Relatedly, the definition of “freedom of religion” will continue to be circumscribed to “freedom of worship.”

    5. All public schools, and likely, private schools, religious or not, will be under still more pressure, including legal, to teach that all adult consenting relationships are the same.

    6. Claims that Obergefell is now “settled law” and the “debate is over” will be extremely common; claims that McDonald and Hobby Lobby are similarly “settled” will be ignored or dismissed.

  • In the Department of Justice some members have committed perjury in their pride and in their prejudice. God is the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.
    Perjury is finite and will cease because perjury has no foundation in the Truth. The court redefined marriage without sexual intercourse. Sodomy is not sexual intercourse. Perjury is not equal Justice.

  • First of all Maister McC, very many thanks for the laughter your post provoked. 🙂

    More and more these days I find comfort in St Thomas More’s, “Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation” (1553).

    “And when the devil hath seen that they have set so little by him, after certain essays, made in such times as he thought most fitting, he hath given that temptation quite over. And this he doth not only because the proud spirit cannot endure to be mocked, but also lest, with much tempting the man to the sin to which he could not in conclusion bring him, he should much increase his merit.”

    As you are aware, the dialogue in question is between a young Hungarian and his aged uncle. It takes place between the battle of Mohacs in 1526, the latest of many such dreadful days, and the 1529 siege of Vienna. Christendom is riven by division and will not form a united front against the Ottomans. The younger of the two men is close to despair. His uncle advises that such temptation must be resisted by prayer, the exercise of willpower and by mocking the enemy as described above.

    Second time in twenty-four hours that I have cited this passage…

    Thanks again for the gift of laughter.

    God bless.

  • Neither defeatism nor optimism…..but realism and even hope from Cardinal George

    ““I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square,” as George once told a group of priests in a speech on what he saw as the likely fate of religious freedom in the modern, secular world.

    What was often omitted from that rather stark assessment was George’s follow-up line, which expressed the confidence that the successor of that bishop-martyr “will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

    The foundation of that hope was George’s belief that a Catholic Church inspired by the turn to tradition represented by John Paul and Benedict — and to no small degree himself — would endure.

    The only thing preventing such a restoration was an internal threat, namely “liberal Catholicism,” which in a famous 1998 speech he called “an exhausted project” that “has shown itself unable to pass on the faith in its integrity and (is) inadequate, therefore, in fostering the joyful self-surrender called for in Christian marriage, in consecrated life, in ordained priesthood.”

    “It no longer gives life,” he said of the church’s left wing.”

  • With regard to Dixie, American jurisprudence, traditional marriage, and pretty much everything else, what existed yesterday must be completely wiped from our memories. That’s why the archetype Democratic Party voter is the glue-sniffer. This makes me suspicious. I’ve heard about new regulations for just about every industry but glue manufacturing. The Dems support small local farms, a potential source of glue ingredients. Could it be that their claim of being “uniters” is a dog-whistle reference to adhesives? I think we’ve seen the future, and we’ve already forgotten about it.

  • I think I now know why every year there has been scriptural reading on the martyrdom of Eleazer and the martyrdom of the seven brothers [sons of a mother especially admirable and worthy of honourable remembrance] from 2 Maccabees.
    All you holy martyrs, pray for us.

  • There is cause for hope. They have not yet made same-sex marriage mandatory. We have time to head that one off…

  • Hello Mr. McClarey,

    Would you be able explain to me or point me in the direction of an explanation as to why Supreme Court acted bond their original powers?

    I live in a house where it’s just common knowledge that what the Supreme Court did was right. Because it’s wrong to not allow gays and lesbians to marry. Everyone is just so happy about it. But something, to me, seems off with this.

    And there’s really no arguing with my mom about it (and dad isn’t the type to want any drama). My older sister would think I’m a Nazi if I even questioned what they decided for us.

    So, after some searching I found your blog and some others where I posted essentially th same question. What did the Supreme Court do wrong?

    Thank you

  • UGH!
    That sentence should read “why the Supreme Court acted beyond”.

    Also, I’m a ‘male’ Skyler, not a ‘female’ Skyler.

  • If I were a baker or photographer attacked by a gay gestapo couple to test my “purity,” I would take the job and then use buttermilk and salt instead of cream and sugar and photo-shop their gaymentos with images of weeping angels. Then, they can sue me for doing a crappy job not discrimination.

  • Agree with Scalia’s dissent to the gay marriage decision. You have become a nation ruled by five unelected judges.
    Tyrany is upon you.

  • “So, after some searching I found your blog and some others where I posted essentially th same question. What did the Supreme Court do wrong?”

    They made up a right under the Constitution that has no basis in the Constitution and that no one would have dreamed of 15 years ago. This is a betrayal of the judicial function and a usurpation of the right of Americans to rule themselves.

    Read the dissents and they will give you all the ammunition you need in debate as to why the decision was legally an obscenity. Of course many people are results oriented and only see that their side won, uncaring that the same raw usurpation of judicial power could be used against them in the future.

  • Thank you Mr. McClarey.
    I did try reading the dissents, but, some of it was over my ability to understand.
    But, with what you just replied with I’m going to read them again. Maybe that will help shed some light.

    I just want to say though; something about this cheering on of another’s sexual actions seems so odd to me. I mean, it makes sense to me that sex has the function of creating babies. And what a crazily important function that is when a person is being honest with themselves. My mom will FLIP out over a person’s diet (carbs are evil! Monsanto is evil!!). Get caught eating a f’n cupcake at my house and that’s a 10 minute yelling about how irresponsible I am. But if it’s that important what goes into a body…. how is it not even more important that sexual actions beheld under the same focus???? Govts busy themselves with diets but not sexual appetites??!!! And, from my own experience with what pornography can do to a young guys mind and behavior… as well as seeing my friends that are sexually active in every sense of the word and how crappy of an attitude that they seem to develop…. it just seems to me that sexual libertinism (I think that’s the word I mean…. a word I picked from another blog… so If I’m wrong, blame them) corrupts everything.
    I’m ranting…. like my mom now.

    Take care

  • Keep reading the blog Skyler and asking questions, and I will be happy to answer as best I can. I have summarized the major points in Justice Scalia’s brilliant dissent at the link below:


    Sex within marriage, binding a man and a woman together in love to bring children into this world, is the basis of every civilization that has ever existed. You understand this when so many have forgotten this basic fact of human existence.

  • In order to understand what must be done one must clearly and realistically understand the challenge. Far too few priests are willing to speak the truth from the pulpit. Attached is a link to the homily given at the recent Fortnight for Freedom mass in Raleigh, NC. Finally, a priest willing to identify the clear and present danger.

  • Skyler, it isn’t just sexual libertinism, any kind of libertinism is in principle an abuse of a good. ‘Ordered liberty’ should be our goal, wherein we rule ourselves in such a way that no one else need do it for us. A people who cannot say ‘no’ to themselves once in awhile over something more consequential than cupcakes will eventually look to someone to say ‘no’ for them.

  • Skyler wrote “I just want to say though; something about this cheering on of another’s sexual actions seems so odd to me.”

    I have always agreed with this. The gays respond “But everyone gets cheered on in straight marriage”. No, I see very little cheering. Truth be told, there are a fair number of traditional marriages where health problems preclude sex, and not just among the elderly. Are they justified in ‘trading in for the new model”? Some do of course, but many take their marriage vows serious and stay, as sad as that sounds. Which is odder, cheering on sex, or abandoning a person for it? And if the least-odd thing were to stay in such circumstances, how many gays would?

  • ISIS is murdering and torturing Christian families and wiping out ancient communities, while Ireland overwhelmingly voted in Sodomy and the U.S. Imposed it upon our nation. Universal health care is imposed upon us with Catholic support which imposes participation in abortion funding on us all. And then there is the issue of crumbling Catholic doctrine from the top down, persecution of the most faithful. Nary a peep of opposition from the Pope or any Bishops. And you are opening a thread for all the whiners and defeatists?

    I guess my question to you is where your glimmer of hope is, (and I do recognize that history belongs to Almighty God). But in the short term, where? John Paul Jones was a great figure from the books; heroic, Nice to read about him 200 years after his death. Do you see another like him, and a military / political culture within which such a one can perform similar deeds? Do tell. Don’t see him on the secular side, and I certainly don’t see anyone remotely like him in the Church in response to our more current threats. Do you?

  • Skyler, thanks for joining the conversation on this blog. You give me hope for the younger generation. Never stop searching for the Truth.

  • Maybe this time in history is our Thermopylae. With the help of God and the Blessed Virgin let us make the best of it and be thankful for the opportunity, because, after all, we will win if we hang in there, if not now, later.

  • “I guess my question to you is where your glimmer of hope is”

    In God and in us, His instruments in this Vale of Tears. Additionally from History. Struggles such as the one we are engaged in over the hearts and minds of a people are rarely straight line progressions. If they were, the abortion debate would have ended in 1973 with Roe. Giving way to panic and despair is precisely what our enemies wish us to do. Always refuse to play their game, or to fight on their terms.

  • Skyler: The rational part of your soul is functioning. Now, this is the time for cheering. Same sex “marriage” denies the rational, immortal human soul. This is right in line with one world government under a godless regime. making of persons units of work, denying their sovereign personhood and their image of God in their soul, their free will. When the gays come for their recompense, the regime will laugh them out as “useful idiots” as Lenin did his Bolshevics.
    Same sex marriage is just another crowbar in the door of your privacy, and your personal freedom. Hillary Clinton said that : “Deep Seated Cultural Codes, Religious beliefs…have to be changed”. There will be no First Amendment. The Supreme Court has already seen to that by imposing atheism as a religion, human sacrifice as a right and sodomy as a form of sexual intercourse. America will cease to be a sovereign nation constituted by the sovereign personhood of its citizens when the Supreme Court and Hillary Clinton sells our sovereignty to the highest bidder under one world government.
    Donald McClarey said that the biggest crime the Supreme Court committed was against self-government, that is, for the citizens to be self-determining and free. When the same sex couple come into your bakery for a same sex wedding cake, tell them to come back when you stop laughing. Tell them you cannot work while you are laughing. Tell them that your laughing is resounding through all eternity. Still laughing. When the same sex couple want sodomy taught in public schools tell them as soon as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is taught.

  • The human being has an innate human right to self-preservation and a civil right to self-defense. When a proprietor of a business feels intuitively that he or she is threatened by an hostile customer, the business proprietor has a right to self-defense, to call the police and ask that the hostile customer be remove from the premises. Feeling threatened is a valid claim on civil servants. The Preamble states: “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The business proprietor is a citizen and not owned by the state. He is entitled to the same protection that all other persons are entitled to…to be free from trespassing on personal privacy and free from physical and verbal assault, which the same sex couple inveigh against him and his freedom.

  • “I guess my question to you is where your glimmer of hope is”
    First, there is no crying in baseball.
    Second, be optimistic. “If it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger.”
    Third, our Hope is Jesus Christ and The Kingdom, which is not of this world nor is it of this carnal, craven body.
    Fourth, pray for the conversions of democrats, progressives (their god is the state), and sodomites (their god is in their gonads). For all persons will face death, judgment and either Heaven or Hell. If the evil-doers don’t repent, forever they will suffer in the fire of Hell.
    Fifth, do not be silent when they slander and libel you or when they utter hate-filled lies about you.

  • Obergefell was no more an exercise of raw judicial power than was Roe — if I remember correctly, it was one of the dissenting Justices in Roe who coined the phrase “raw judicial power”. And from a Christian moral point of view, abortion (which involves killing an innocent third party, the unborn child) is a far worse evil than two men or two women contracting a civil marriage of their own free will. If the Republic is dead because of that decision, it’s been dead for at least the past 40 years, if not longer.

    As for those convinced that churches will be compelled to perform same-sex weddings: it is, I think, possible (but by no means certain) that non-discrimination against same-sex couples could become a condition of being granted authority to officiate CIVIL weddings or to sign off on civil marriage licenses. If that happens, the obvious solution for observant Catholic, Evangelical, etc. clergy would be to offer religious ceremonies only and leave the civil/legal wedding to the civil officials. This has already been the case for centuries in certain countries that do not recognize religious wedding ceremonies — observant Catholic couples simply have two wedding ceremonies, one at a government office and another at church. Already some very orthodox Catholics and Evangelicals endorse this approach as one way to get around the problem.

  • I have just been told the day of Supreme Court decision is the anniversary — on this day more than 500 years before Christ, is the day that Jerusalem fell to Babylon Jeremiah 39
    This supreme court decision will encourage more people to accept this sin and to actually sin themselves— has eternal consequences for many many souls. The supreme court gives legitimacy to this sin. Angels help us and our children/grandchildren

  • Let us not forget that for those of us who have been confirmed we received the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

  • “Already some very orthodox Catholics and Evangelicals endorse this approach as one way to get around the problem.”

    How would that get around the problem Elaine? Priests under the statutes of every state have the ability to marry people civilly. That they choose not to exercise that power would make little difference in a law suit by two homosexual Catholics who wish to marry. I assume such a law suit would be thrown out on First Amendment grounds. However, a Supreme Court that could find in the Constitution a right to gay marriage, could find in it anything they wish to insert in it.

    These type of retreat from the world tricks are worse than useless.

  • While attending a Gabriel Richard seminar on how to be visible Catholic some thirty years ago, stage fright took my voice away and I could not even say my name. (and if you think, I was bad, the guy standing next to me couldn’t remember his name). I cannot function under duress. I suffer from acrophobia, (can’t cross a bridge) claustrophobia, (can’t go through a tunnel or an elevator) and homophobia (the reasonable rejection of what is not understood). The Supreme Court said that I was not allowed to suffer from homophobia. I am wondering if the Supreme Court will outlaw my claustrophobia, my acrophobia, my chemical sensitivity, my hay fever, my asthma, my allergies and my stage fright, as well. I would be glad to live a normal life again.
    Saul Alinsky asked God to send him to hell. But now, Alinsky is taking the whole population to hell with him. Hell no, I will not go. When a gay couple enters your business establishment and orders a gay wedding cake, tell them you cannot function under duress or threats of legal action. Tell the gay couple that you are uncomfortable in their presence and offended by their demands and would they kindly leave as you call the police for help in your disadvantaged position of having to suffer threats of business foreclosure and panic attacks needing an ambulance. You are threatened by the cruel and unusual punishment being done to Baronnelle Stutzman and Melissa’s Sweet Cakes for suffering homophobia. Since the court has done nothing to alleviate your homophobia, nothing can be done.
    A little Christian Charity on the part of the gay couple will go along way or will the fact that they have no rational soul lead to mob mentality? I still cannot get over the fact that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave informed sexual consent to fourteen year old girls. That’s a mind buster.

  • Elaine Krewer: There is no such thing as a Catholic sodomite. If they are asked to leave the Catholic Church, the sodomite cannot sue . Coming before a judge who can perform the same sex wedding ceremony, to sue the Catholic priest, without employing the judge to do the ceremony is duplicity, fraud and discrimination, religious discrimination…making up situations that are not real before a judge in a court of law. It is similar to a gay couple going to a baker who employs both a Christian and a sodomite baker and demanding that the Christian bake the same sex wedding cake instead of the sodomite. To create a situation is disturbing the peace and is legal harassment. Before a judge who can perform the ceremony, to sue a Catholic priest, is a frivolous lawsuit. Any judge who finds against the priest is abdicating his position on the bench. The judge has stepped down from the bench and he needs to keep going.

  • To address Hillary Clinton’s intent to confine freedom of religion to the worship of God in the privacy of one’s own home, hearts and church, let it be known that God is omnipresent, everywhere and in every thing as creation. The atheist may separate the citizen from God but Hillary cannot separate God from his people, everywhere. God is …everywhere. God is especialy in the human being. To remove God from the human being, many human beings have been murdered. That glow around Obama’s head, that is not holiness. That is 60,000,000 million innocent holy souls who have been murdered before birth and scratched from their mother’s wombs. That glow around Hillary Clinton is 60,000,000 aborted souls. That glow around Jane Fonda’s head are the souls of the GIs Jane had beaten, tortured and starved to death at the Hanoi Hilton. Obama, Hillary and Jane are walking testimonials to their victims, God’s children.

  • God is in hell. God is not in the spirit of the devil, Lucifer, Satan at the devil’s request. The sovereign personhood of the devil refuses to allow God to enter into his spirit and so the only place where God is not is in the devil. So, when God is removed from the public square, the devil fills up the space. When all the demons are in the public square all the space is left over for you and me and the Nativity scene. Every public square without a Nativity scene at Christmas is a tribute to the devil. The chief form of worship of the devil is human sacrifice…abortion. We have that, now what?

  • I like the picture. Every Christian baker needs a watchdog. If the watchdog is incited, the potential customer needs to leave as the dog has sensed something evil cometh.

  • In a political, economic and ecclesial sense, we are in a period of chastisement. For how long this goes on is known only to God.

    For far too many, their worldview is shaped by Hollywood. Gay is cool in Hollywood. Religion is bad in Hollywood. The political left is good and conservatives are intolerant, bad and evil.

    The economic doldrums that now exist and that led to the last recession were brought about by government, The US Government started the subprime mortgage mess by requiring banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford them. This sounds like something the Roman Pontiff came up with.

    Pope Benedict said that the Second Vatican Council must be viewed in the light of the entire teaching of the Church. Too many of our Church leaders see it as a complete break with the past and act that way. Well, if everyone is good and goes to heaven when they die and Confession is de-emphasized, then what’s the reason for going to Mass and learning the Faith?

    I’ve been felling a little down. My house and my car are both old and I have run into unexpected expenses. This happens to just about everyone so I’m not unique in this regard. I get a new boss when I return to work next week and I have no idea how things will work out. She is coming from public accounting and I haven’t got along with those types in the past. I feel a little jealous for my best friend who retired when the Air Marshal office in Pittsburgh was shut down last week. He was able to retire. Most of his coworkers were forced to move or find other jobs. I have ten years to go. Oh, and the rain just won’t quit either.

    So there’s my whining. St. John Paul II said “Be not afraid”, and I’ve felt afraid.

  • Good summary Penguins Fan. You have described your road to heaven. And it is probably only on this and similar web sites you can let it hang out a little. You are fighting the good fight. Keep it up and may God Bless your good work and joyous attitude.

  • Thank you, Mr. Dowd. I should take myself to Confession, do better in my own domestic Church and not get myself so concerned about things I can’t control.

    My seven year old has been a handful for us lately. I believe I have spoiled him and there’s nobody to blame for that but me. I used to get upset at my parents, mostly my dad, for indulging in my oldest brother’s sports activities. My brother grew out of control in high school and really hasn’t learned that he isn’t king of the world in the 29 years since graduation from high school. I need to be more careful.

  • Penquins Fan: You Can Handle Them All: A Discipline Model for Handling 124 Student Behaviors at School and at Homel: by Robert L. Debruyn and Jack L Larson. It’s available on Amazon and http://www.abebooks.com. Also The Strong-Willed Child by Dr. James C. Dobson. The former was especially helpful with my older precocious son. Sometimes children act out at home because of what’s happening at school, or at this time of year because of situations at day camp, T ball practice or with their neighborhood pals. They can also be empathetic and pick up on our emotions as my younger son did. Today our late bloomer son’s, 35 and 32, are successful, decent men, though I’m still praying the Memorare for practicing Catholic wives who will lead them back to the Faith.
    From your previous postings you and your wife sound like really good people and loving parents. Parenting is the toughest job you’ll ever have. Have heart.

  • Wish this website had spell check.

  • Mary de Voe: Your commentary is always of interest to me. Sadly our canine meeter an greeter died last year. Our final career is agro-tourism. We are asked frequently if our vineyard is a wedding venue. It would be very lucrative to rent out the grounds for a ceremony and reception. We haven’t done it and now will not do it because we know we will be approached by an “engaged” same sex couple. “So sue me” won’t work because most small businesses do not have the money to fight it out in court and in many locales the justice system sides with the gay agenda. The use of social media by same sex marriage activists can close down a private business. These tactics are similar to organized crime. Where is Elliot Ness?

  • CAM: I hope that some of my thoughts become useful if you are ever under duress. The gay’s are useful idiots. Obama is going to take your vineyard through Executive Order 13575 Rural Councils. No one is allowed on your private property without an invitation or a search warrant. Obama will criminalize your possession of your own private property, but Obama cannot take your private property because you owned it before He (Obama) passed the law to confiscate your property. Making a law to criminalize an act after the fact is called ex post facto and is unconstitutional. One of my little prayers is: Dear God, don’t let them get away with this evil. or “deliver us from evil.”
    Also, if anyone comes onto your property without an invitation or a search warrant and they break their neck, they cannot sue you, because they were there illegally, trespassing. Where is Eliott Ness when you need him?

  • Jonathan and Mary De Voe: Thank you both for your useful comments.

  • Well. This is an open thread and I’d like to whine about False Premises.
    We have talked recently about the possibility of a pope being heretical, and about the changing meaning of words (like marriage, like State, how about “heretical”).
    I am whining because false premises have become a new orthodoxy. … such as gays can’t help themselves, they are born that way- like race. But we who dissent are the new heretics.
    Words are now empty boxes, and can be filled with whatever either the author or the hearer decides.
    “Marriage” can be redefined, because the Person is redefined. That is the real target of the devil. the Person.
    People say “I AM gay! That is who I am. That is my core identity”
    Misled by that Liar. They define themselves down. America defines itself down.
    The courts call for fairness! “born that way” they can’t help it and so it would be unfair to deny them the comforts of “marriage”. But it is a false premise. No science whatsoever to support it.. Just a heart felt response by families and friends who want to be kind.
    Also no science about global warming. False premises widely accepted as truth.
    “etcetera, etcetera, etcetera” (Yul Brynner)
    “belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine.
    synonyms: dissension, dissent, nonconformity,…..
    … opinion profoundly at odds with what is generally accepted.”

  • @Anzlyne: Do we inherit original sin? If the answer is yes, is that inheritance via genetics? If not, via what mechanism do we get to be born with it?

  • Catechism #404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? the whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.
    It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. and that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” – a state and not an act.

    405 Although it is proper to each individual,original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin – an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

The Supreme Court: A Danger to American Democracy

Friday, June 26, AD 2015


All of Justice Antonin Scalia’s judicial opinions tend to be memorable, but I think his dissent in OBERGEFELL v. HODGES will perhaps be his most cited opinion in what I expect to be a dangerous time for the American Republic over the next few decades.  Here are quotes from his dissent to remember:

1.  It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me.  Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. 

2.  This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

3.   Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.

4.  This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government.  Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

5.   The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation. 

6.  But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.  The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds— minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly— could not.

7.  These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

8.  The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational popphilosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

9. Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall.  The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”  With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

Continue reading...

33 Responses to The Supreme Court: A Danger to American Democracy

  • You left out the best part in footnote 22: “If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: ‘The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,’ I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.”

  • Roberts’ two Obamacare decisions accelerated the post constitutional era. After those decisions it became apparent that henceforth the constitution could be treated as yesterday’s news. Scalia captures the urgency of the moment and something which has nothing to do with the merits of the issue. Federalism is dead. Freedom of political speech….dead. Freedom in the exercise of religion….dead. The second act of the post constitutional era starts now and it will be ugly. There are the obvious things like church tax status, mandated school gender curriculum, etc, but there is the 5 to 10 year wave of assaults such as shutting down this website and others over “hate speech”. You must understand this is not about homosexuals, but about the 100 year progressive war against the restraints on government power once expressed in the Constitution. Next up…..the final assault on the family.

  • Since performing gay marriage ceremonies BEFORE the decision didn’t require Justices Ginsberg & Kagan to recuse themselves in this case will someone, please, invite Justice Scalia to keynote the next Pro-Life conference? He’s a great speaker, and no conflict of interest would exist.

  • “I would hide my head in a bag.”

    Quite right David. That is one for the ages.

  • Within the past 5 minutes a small statue within our house of Our Lady of Guadalupe, for no apparent cause, fell and broke in two.

  • Donald—you blogged about the juvenile reaction by corporatist to the Conferate battle flag. Watch next what happens in Hollywood and the business world. Some of this takes place now but it will be far worse

    Signed pledges upholding homosexual or gender diversity
    Corporate retailers restricting business with churches
    Unmitigated Hollywood attacks and refusal by investors to finance faith based movies
    Government contractors will be required to have homosexual happy talks
    The litigation business will flourish with the grievances of homosexualists…..and woe be to the litigation lawyer who refuses to undertake representation for claims of homosexual grievances

    The imagination for attack on those churches which refuse to submit will know no bounds. And unlike abortion, speech against the homosexual agenda can be targeted regardless of Kennedy’s weak deference to what he described as acceptable religious “advocacy”. When you read Kennedy’s Windsor opininoin on DOMA the outcome of the fight between religious freedom vs homosexual “marriage” is beyond worrisome…..almost foregone.

  • Oh, I think the Homosexual Movement has its high tide today, just as the pro-abort movement had it with Roe. The decision today by the Court I believe will re-energize social conservatives. We shall see.

    Oh, and Apple, hit by a lot of negative publicity, is beginning to walk back its ban:


    Social conservatives have to realize that we are in a long term fight and fight smart. For those who support traditional marriage, lessons learned in the long fight against abortion are instructive. Above all let us be of good cheer, and go happily about our task. God placed us in this time for a purpose, and we must not disappoint Him by being downcast and fearful. Let gloom and despair be present only among the Devil and his disciples!

  • Thanks. I needed a foxhole slap in the head. Tough two weeks.

  • The danger of SCOTUS to the Republic has existed since the Dred Scott decision. When it counts, SCOTUS can be depended on to decide wrong.

  • Clearly the republic that is the US is not working [I have concluded for some time now that it couldn’t because it was flawed from its very inception]. If there was any republic that looked like it would it was the US, my question then is if there is any man-made republic that can work.

  • Face it. We r a post constitutional country. Self gov’t died with the SCOTUScare ruling where the majority of SCOTUS let us know that it didn’t matter WHAT we wrote into our laws–that 5 lawyers on that court wud be telling over 300 million of us how we will live–under the coercive force of govt. I hope we don’t end up in another civil war–but I seriously expect it.

  • “Lincoln’s rejection of the Dred Scott decision’s account of congressional authority was not intended as a mere theoretical exercise. His aim was not to see his counter-argument published in a learned journal. Rather, he made this rejection the basis of proposed political resistance to the Court’s overreaching…Just as the Taney Court told Americans in the 1850s that they were not permitted to govern themselves on the slavery issue, so today Justice Kennedy and his liberal collaborators on the Court are presuming to tell the present generation of Americans that they have no right to self-government on the question of defining marriage. That weighty question, they are telling us, will be decided by our betters—that is, by them.”


  • “Yet at the heart of the Civil War, the crisis that triggered it, and the changes that it brought were enormous constitutional issues. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the Civil War was fought over the meaning of the Constitution, and over who would have the ultimate power to decide that meaning. The Civil War decided—on the battlefields rather than in the courts—the most important constitutional questions in our nation’s history: the nature of the Union under the Constitution, the status and future of slavery, the powers of the national government versus the states, the supremacy of the Constitution, and the wartime powers of the president as commander in chief. It was the Civil War, not any subsequent judicial decision, that “overruled” the Supreme Court’s atrocious decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford creating a national constitutional right to own slaves.”


  • “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man thanthat which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.” –Thomas Jefferson to New
    London Methodist, 1809.

  • TX Gov Abbott is showing the rest if them up. I know my gov locales in comparison to him at this point of the game.


  • “Clearly the republic that is the US is not working [I have concluded for some time now that it couldn’t because it was flawed from its very inception]. If there was any republic that looked like it would it was the US, my question then is if there is any man-made republic that can work.”

    Our republic works just fine when it is tried…the 3 branches do their jobs…citizens do their part– greed, power, ambition, lack of the application of moral, lack of the citizenry paying attention, etc have all damaged the function of our republic until it has died a slow gasping death.

    Thomas Jefferson forsake this very type of Judicial tyranny & Abe Lincoln defined it for us as well.

    It seems to be the very sin nature of man that has brought our republic down.


    Abe Lincoln predicted that a court that was allowed to legislate from the bench would lead to tyranny in his 1st Inaugural address.

    “If the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

    In the article below, it is argued that an improper/weak response of the other 2 branches of govt to activist courts is the cause of the republic’s downfall. I think that point has great validity. like pastors hiding behind their tax exempt status to avoid controversy and needed confrontation with the culture, politicians have often hid behind a court ruling out of weakness & to avoid taking full responsibility for the authority given them under the law. It really is easier, at least on the front end, to let others be responsible for the tough calls of freedom.


    John Adams said the following: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.”

    Benjamin Franklin is often having indicated that our republic would endure until the people started voting themselves other people’s money.

    I, personally, believe the failures/destruction of the family and the failure of common k-12 education due to federal meddling are enough over time to bring us down.

    We are literally dealing with all of these issues and more–at the same time.

  • Judicial activism has been a threat to American liberty for decades. It started long before Roberts was named Chief Justice.

    I am almost 52. I remember the court-ordered school desegregation cases in the 1970s as I was in school myself then. There were riots in Boston. One city after another lost school desegregation cases, followed by court-ordered busing of schoolkids across cities. Massive middle class flight ensued. Busing was a failure.

    Roe v Wade was ruled under false pretense. There was the Kelo decision empowering government to seize private property.

    Kennedy, the dimwitted intellectual lightweight that he is, has taken it upon himself to legitimize everything about homosexuality. There was the Texas sodomy decision and now this.

  • If what you really want is a democracy, try the British system:-
    1) The fundamental principle is that Parliament (the Legislative branch) can make and unmake any law whatsoever.
    2) The Cabinet (the Executive branch) is a committee of the Legislature that the Lower House can dismiss at pleasure by a vote of no confidence.
    3) In the event of a vote of no confidence, or if the Legislature will not pass his measures, the Prime Minister (the head of the Executive) can” go to the country,” that is, call a general election and invite the voters to return members who will back him, which the voters may or may not do.
    The “checks and balances” are provided by the Executive’s fear of losing its majority and the individual members’ fear of losing their seats in a snap election.

  • That’s not gonna happen here, Mr. Paterson-Seymour.

  • Five black-robed nitwits think they have authority to reverse 25,000 years of human biology, culture, and society.
    The SC effectively ruled that a dog’s tail is a leg. However, the mongrel still has only four legs.
    Yesterday, the idiots consigned themselves to irrelevancy. I no longer consent to be ruled.
    And, America have fully entered the post-Constitution era and it will not be pretty.

  • Penguins Fan wrote, “That’s not gonna happen here, Mr. Paterson-Seymour.”
    I know.
    For historical reasons, to an American, freedom primarily means being free from interference, especially government interference and a strong government is feared as a threat to freedom.
    Europeans, by contrast, see government action as the consummated result of their own organized wishes. Of course, Europeans can be very readily persuaded that self-serving deputies are betraying the people’s mandate, in the service of special interests; in fact, the political class is held in great contempt. Nevertheless, no one believes that curbing the powers of government is desirable, or even imaginable: the government is the appointee and agent of the people; to curb the government’s powers is to curb their own.

  • The ACLU quietly announced that it would no longer support religious freedom. The DOJ is questioning whether Church’s that disagree or do not support homosexuality should keep their Tax Exemption. The Quisling, Ted Olson will now focus on having the Bible proclaimed hate speech as they have in parts of Canada. And with very little fan fare the liberals in congress will force through legislation lowering the age of consent to 12 years old.
    “Liberalism is the transformation of mankind into cattle”

  • Since the Supreme Court has become merely a political body that talks about law–politicians with robes for credibility—I suggest we do away with it, as we already have politicians ignoring law in our other bodies of government.
    For this we had a revolution?
    Long live the king!

  • The Legislature surrenders its prerogative to the Executive who acts in its stead, while the Supreme Court usurps the prerogative of the Supreme Being. What could go wrong?

  • There is more defeatism here than on the designated defeatism thread!
    I am glad there is some love expressed for mystical aphorisms. I must admit it as a new favorite of mine.

    I for one would like to get a notebook and write down all of the predictions made here and see how many end up coming true. That will be the point for agony and despair.

  • @Barbara Gordon: Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.

  • Our federal government, and many of our state governments, are losing more and more legitimacy. We are not bound to obey an unjust law. My question is how far are we obligated to obey an illegitimate government? It seems that in some cases we must do so only insofar as they have a partial measure of legitimacy and rule justly. In other cases we would be required to resist an illegitimate government to the full extent we are able to, as happened during the Cristero War in Mexico. I think we are at the first point right now. We can safely just ignore the government on those points where it violates morality and justice. Unfortunately, the government is moving to the point where we may need to find a little bit of Cristero in all of us. I pray it doesn’t reach that point.

  • If possible, emigrate to a fiscally-solvent red state with a limited, rational state government.

    Feign obedience and covertly resist in every possible way.
    The national regime is post-Constitutional. It has usurped far too much power. All three branches of the Federal government are bat-crap crazy/stupid. Everything they touch will be wrecked.
    You need to plan and prepare for the “zombie” apocalypse, which by comparison will make look like Eden the Great Depression and post-WWII Germany and Japan. There will be no Marshall Plan.

  • I suggest we do away with it, as we already have politicians ignoring law in our other bodies of government.

    It’s quite simple. Within the law, the Congress determines the jurisdictions of the courts. From now on the troublesome appellate courts will each have as their jurisdiction one square yard in the middle of Sunset Blvd. Within the law, the courts do not operate without appropriations. Staff, what staff Mr. Justice Roberts? No staff, plant, or equipment. Within the law, they all get paid in potatoes once a year. Not within the law (but they cannot complain without being laughed at), they’re all declared in a state of bad behavior by a joint resolution of Congress and exiled via bill of attainder to Argentina. Of course, the Republican caucus in Congress would never have the cojones to do any of this.

  • Our federal government, and many of our state governments, are losing more and more legitimacy

    Yes. Never in my lifetime (and, I think it might be said) not for a verrry long time has public life been so suffused with humbug. I doubt an honest word is ever uttered anymore outside of odd little corners like this one and the object of the opposition is not persuasion but humiliation to render the resistant complicit. It is all coming to a head when this country needs our most capable and prudent men in charge and the men in charge are vain fools like Anthony Kennedy and crudniks like John Koskinen.

  • in fact, the political class is held in great contempt. Nevertheless, no one believes that curbing the powers of government is desirable, or even imaginable: the government is the appointee and agent of the people; to curb the government’s powers is to curb their own.

    And your point is what, that Europe is populated with people who cannot recognize a logical contradiction?

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES: 5-4 Supreme Court Mandates Gay Marriage Nationally

Friday, June 26, AD 2015



How wrong you were Alex.

In a decision which completes the transition of the Supreme Court to a super legislature, the Court today mandated gay marriage across the nation.  Justice Scalia’s dissent, shorn of footnotes and legal citations to aid in reading by non-attorneys, notes that the Court is a threat to American democracy:


JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting. I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion in full.  I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me.  The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance.

Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws.  So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me.  Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. 

Continue reading...

74 Responses to OBERGEFELL v. HODGES: 5-4 Supreme Court Mandates Gay Marriage Nationally

  • I would assume polygamy will be next.

  • My thoughts exactly DJ. The contours of the slippery slope have long been visible.

  • The contours of the slippery slope have long been visible.

    But Tom, don’t you know slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies?

    If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is ‘no legitimate state interest’ for purposes of proscribing that conduct … what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising ‘[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution?’ – Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, 2003.

    Oh. Wait.

  • Has God turned his back on this once blessed land?

  • “Has God turned his back on this once blessed land?”

    No. Humans have turned their back of God. Now, what will we with God do and, probably, suffer as a result?

  • That should read “backs on”

  • We learn today that 600,000 men died in order that the 13th and 14th amendments can now be used to sacranentalize sodomy as an act beneficial for the survival of society. We have dishonored ourselves, our ancestors, our culture, our traditions, and the noble dead. Lord have mercy on us.

    The majority opinion is chilling as it makes a fist in glove reference to the right of the religious community to continue to advocate (but clearly not in the public square) and teach our children (but likely not others). Roberts picked up on the use of language replacing free exercise of religion. This is a manifesto for the left. Tax status of the Church–gone. Accreditation of Church schools–gone. Church teachings as hate speech–institutionalized. I blame this on CO2 and global warming. It’s interrelated don’t you know.

  • Polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc – the entire horrid putrid lot of sexual perversion – will be losed upon us. I hope this can be resolved without recourse to civil war, but I fear not. Liberal progressive Democrats will use this to begin open active persecution of Christians, and I fear but hope not that only a Maccabean response can stop them. These people are utterly, totally and completely evil and depraved.

  • I would assume polygamy will be next.

    You’re assuming logical consistency applies. The disreputable Mr. Sailer put it thus: “It’s a popularity contest. Mormon polygamists are extremely unpopular, so no one is going to do anything for them”. Legal decisions like this may make use of a particular (deadly) idiom, but they reflect elements of elite culture, the culture of the bar, and the intersection of the two in the appellate judiciary.

    Here’s the business: the self-understanding of the legal profession (and, really, of the professional-managerial element generally) is no longer compatible with free and popular government. A couple of outcomes seem possible. One is a continuing slide into political pantomime until our institutions are as rococo and divorced from popular sentiment as those of the Venitian Republic. Another is what Gottfried Dietze called a diffidatio the result of which is that our legal, academic, and media Bourbons are put in their place, at considerable cost in blood and treasure. Just what we all want when we are facing an ascendant China.

    See Conrad Black: the political class in this country has flubbed every issue of the post-Cold War period bar welfare reform (and, in a selection of loci, crime control). Now we have elite figures who want to trash what achievements have been had in these areas as well (Obama, di Blasio, and the dolt soon to be inaugurated as Mayor of Philadelphia). We have a bad and incompetent elite without a trace of a public spirit. However slipping-clutch was the political order prior to 1961 and however many rogues like Lyndon Johnson were abroad in it, you could not say that of the political class of that era.

  • “Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability.” – Agent Smith, The Matrix

  • Will churches be mandated by law to perform same sex weddings? Will they lose their tax exempt status if they refuse? Anyone.

  • The magnitude of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th order of effects of today’s decision are staggering in their possibility and probability.

    However, the supporters of this decision will become more confident and cocky in their victory. They will overplay their hand. There is opportunity to be had there.

    The soft tyranny we have allowed these past decades hardened today.

    Mary, Mother of God, pray for us.

  • Welcome to tyranny. In Casey v Planned parenthood, Kennedy was a turncoat. In that decision, O’Connor (joined by catholic Kennedy) scolded us saying the debate must now and henceforth cease as to whether killing an infant in the womb is a fundamental right.

    In this decision, Scalia rightly points out that the debate taking place in the states is democratic process as it should be. This decision, like Casey, is an expression of tyrannical sentiments. The Court has trashed the 1st Amendment by trashing religion as a bastard of democracy, and by declaring debate, ie speech, over this subject as now concluded. You now have no right to try to persuade your state legislature about the merits of your position. some may love being governed by global authorities, and so this decision is good practice for the rest of us.

  • “But Tom, don’t you know slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies?”

    Of course they are logical fallacies, because slipperiness can be arrested by willpower, but the slope remains in the minds of its adherents, always leading to the desired outcome even if in reality it is not inevitable. A prime example is gun control: intellectual will has ended the ‘slipperiness’ of the argument that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right, but the desired outcome remains. Or to put it another way:
    Of course slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies, until they aren’t.

  • Alan – Not for a while. My bet is it’ll go a little differently. They’ll be told that they can hold or refuse whatever religious services they wish, but they’re obligated to perform civil weddings for anyone or for no one. A lot of libertarians will support it, as will Christians who’ve decided to just bow out of the culture wars. That won’t be enough for the activists, though. They’re not looking for rights, they’re looking for acceptance. (They’re looking for a loud public voice of acceptance to drown out the little inner voice telling them they’re wrong.) Maybe the tax-exemption will be broken some other way, like through a “separation of church and state” argument or a local zoning dispute taken national. Adoption services will be long gone by then.

    None of those things are inevitable, but we’re going to be told simultaneously that they are inevitable, and that it’s all in our heads.

  • “Will churches be mandated by law to perform same sex weddings? Will they lose their tax exempt status if they refuse? Anyone.”

    Not yet. First you need:
    1) Religious-based colleges will be forced to perform them
    2) Churches in other democracies like the UK and Mexico will be forced to perform them, and will offer only token resistance

  • “Mormon polygamists are extremely unpopular, so no one is going to do anything for them”

    And that’s why we have polyamory.

  • Pingback: U. S. Supreme Court Legalizes So-Called Same-Sex Marriage
  • Art: “Mormon polygamists are extremely unpopular, so no one is going to do anything for them”

    Oh, man! I forgot about them. I was thinking of Islam. Islam is very popular. And if you’re an immigrant, especially an undocumented one, so much the better. Granted, a lot of Latinos are supposedly Catholic, but not always it would seem.
    But I was also reading recently about polyamory too. There is some commune that practices it. Oh! and how lovely it is for the children!! (Alas, I cannot find the article online right now.)

  • . Religious Catholic bakers and photographers and reception hall owners who see this area as fraught with giving scandal have a very tough road ahead and I hope Rome can give them guidance out loud.

  • “We have a bad and incompetent elite without a trace of a public spirit.”

    Comment of the week Art! Take ‘er away Sam!


  • Don’t forget, everyone, have fish for lunch. We’re in this for the long haul.

  • One of the interesting features of this decision is that it is 5-4. In years past Justices would not have dreamed of a major decision hanging upon a one vote margin. They would want as many votes as possible prior to doing something like this. Now the majority simply does not care. They have the power and they will use it, whether it rests on the slenderest possible of margins. The hubris is almost as stunning as their reduction of the Constitution to a pile of clay that can be made into anything by 5 Justices.

  • I predict that religious freedom (under Obamacare) will fall next and the UN will–this fall–become the world’s main power (regardless of how cleverly the big powers pretend otherwise and word things)
    This climate encyclical will play no small part is the coming disaster.
    Why? Because no one dare stop them, and most institutions–including the Church–find no immorality in restoring Caesar to the Emperor’s throne

  • “…most institutions–including the Church–find no immorality in restoring Caesar to the Emperor’s throne.”
    Revelation 13
    1 And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, with ten horns and seven heads, with ten diadems upon its horns and a blasphemous name upon its heads. 2 And the beast that I saw was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s, and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth. And to it the dragon gave his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of its heads seemed to have a mortal wound, but its mortal wound was healed, and the whole earth followed the beast with wonder. 4 Men worshiped the dragon, for he had given his authority to the beast, and they worshiped the beast, saying, “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?”
    5 And the beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months; 6 it opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. 7 Also it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. And authority was given it over every tribe and people and tongue and nation, 8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, every one whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain. 9 If any one has an ear, let him hear:
    10 If any one is to be taken captive,
    to captivity he goes;
    if any one slays with the sword,
    with the sword must he be slain.
    Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.

  • Don—my reading of the Roberts decision yesterday was that a majority of the court doesn’t want to hear any more appeals on obamacare……and so I agree with you.

  • Let’s not forget the work of the great Catholic statesmen Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden, whose vicious attacks on Robert Bork indirectly led to the nomination of Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. Thanks to these Catholic Democrats abortion rights became more entrenched (via Casey) and gay marriage became a national right.

  • I’m going to look at the bright side. If things aren’t reversed and this all winds up being the new order, I won’t have to worry about geriatric treatments under Obamacare.

  • Still think you and your fellow Republicans are going to win in 2015, Don? Your Republican buddies have caved in on everything, including this. America 2015 R.I.P. GOP 2015 R.I.P. Cause of death: destroying it’s credibility by giving in to every liberal trend that came along.

  • Another tragedy in a long string of tragedies in our country. Not unexpected, but still very sad. Another step on the way to the destruction of this once great country. The Supreme Court has NO business making law. These justices will have a lot of accounting to do on their last day when they face Almighty God. Even if they think they are not accountable to right and justice here on earth, there will be no escaping it at the end. And no excuses will work for them in that High Court. The REALLY Supreme Court.

  • “Still think you and your fellow Republicans are going to win in 2015, Don?”

    Most certainly for the reasons previously stated.

    “Your Republican buddies have caved in on everything, including this.”
    Actually, only one member of the GOP on the court agreed with this, Justice Kennedy, who decades ago went over to the dark side.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “In years past Justices would not have dreamed of a major decision hanging upon a one vote margin. They would want as many votes as possible prior to doing something like this…”

    And sometimes with rather curious results. A case, Minersville School District v Gobitis [310 US 586 (1940)] that was decided by a majority of eight to one, was overruled three years later in West Virginia School Board of Education v Barnette [319 US 624 (1943)] by a majority of six to three. Of the six, three of the Justices (Black, Douglas & Murphy JJ) had changed their minds, two (Jackson & Ritledge JJ) were new appointments and one was the former lone dissident (Stone CJ, formerly Stone J).

    Hardly surprising that in Jones v Opelika [319 US 584 (1942)] one finds Roberts J complaining that, in some six years, the court had fourteen times reversed one or more of its earlier decisions, many of them recent. He observed that such decisions tended “to bring adjudications of this tribunal into the same class as a restricted railroad ticket, good for this day and train only. I have no assurance, in view of current decisions, that the opinion announced today may not shortly be repudiated and overruled by justices who deem they have new light on the subject.”

  • (posting this from another blog:
    Ticked Parent: “… Making homosexual “marriage” legal will not make it normal, but it will add to the confusion of the times. And it will add to the downward spiral of our civilization. But Chesterton’s prophecy remains: We will not be able to destroy the family. We will merely destroy ourselves by disregarding the family.””

    guest to Ticked Parent: Great and relevant Chesterton quote.
    The Church’s teaching on why there is a prohibition on genetically altering embryos and why non-natural procreation is bad for families is also relevant–with the creation of genetically three-parent children just on the horizon, (for more detail see the “Mary Meets Dolly” blog) the three-way marriage (based on Kennedy’s bizarre reasoning) is sure to pass constitutional muster.

  • 1. Polygamy is certainly the next thing.
    2. Persecution too, as the motive is a painful conscience to those who embrace a lie, to shut down anyone who speaks of conjugal marriage.

    But the thing that has happened today, is, as Donald R. McClarey states eloquently: “The hubris is almost as stunning as their reduction of the Constitution to a pile of clay that can be made into anything by 5 Justices.”
    Polygamy and Persecution are one thing, but the above could mean the end of the Republic.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour, if it were only that simple. There is a complacency in contemporary Americans to take Supreme Court cases as seriously as they do a sports match. Pick a side, follow that side through the media until game day and there will be no reversal or reconsideration of whatever happens on the field of play. “Championships are forever” is a mentality that has seeped into our popular understanding of the law, our courts (especially the Supreme Court) and how our government works, or should. While I am sure there will be those of us, especially people on blogs like this, with a different opinion; I do not expect resistance or questioning of the court’s decision to have any effect on our political or media classes anytime soon- “leave me alone, the court has decided” is a very popular sentiment.

  • Alan : “Will churches be mandated by law to perform same sex weddings? Will they lose their tax exempt status if they refuse? Anyone”
    Churches are held in trust for all future generations. Gifts, donations and behests are tax free items. Church parishioners have paid their fair share of taxes as ordinary citizens. It would be taxation without representation two taxes, one vote. The church has five trustees who represent the physical plant and deal with the state. They have paid their taxes. Taxing the God, atheism denies, is going to be interesting. Unless a person is invited by his willingness to enter into God’s House, the government agent from the IRS is not welcome and may not trespass against the parish property. It is in the law. The IRS agent has no business on private property of the church, a non-profit. I wish them HELL if they try. The IRS agents may join the sodomites in HELL. Hillary Clinton said: “Deep seated Cultural Codes, Religious beliefs have to be changed”, about human sacrifice. After Hillary Clinton changes the existence of HELL to non-existence, then Hillary may get my vote. Go Hillary to a non-existent HELL.
    Since Roe v. Wade made human sacrifice available, the human conscience and the immortal soul is denied. The jack-boot corruption may only be put off by God. The United State of the United Nations, one nation without God, dispensable, corruptible and violable.

  • “Polygamy and Persecution are one thing, but the above could mean the end of the Republic.”
    The Republic ended when the Person of God was denied His civil rights. Human sacrifice followed and now, the devil has been given free reign.

  • This ruling is not about equality. It is about bringing
    Christian churches in America under the control of
    the state. The sodomites now have been granted
    by the state the power to redefine or destroy
    Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular
    in America.

  • Your Republican buddies have caved in on everything, including this.
    They’re astoundingly ineffectual. You can float two explanations for that. One propagated by Robert Stacy McCain (who is a lapsed newspaper editor and certainly knows a great many people around Capitol Hill) is that a critical mass of Republican legislators have no intention of accomplishing anything because they are basically cat’s paws of donor interests and payola sucking crooks and anything they emphasize will be ‘trivial messaging items’. Explanation two is that gatekeepers within the Republican Party are being blackmailed. Given the Hastert and IRS scandals, that possibility has entered the realm of the reasonable.
    What gets you is the culture, and that implicates much of the public as well as our current crop of politicians. Gerald Ford was taken to task a generation ago for unseemly buckraking (the bulk of which, I believe, was ploughed into his presidential library), but a sum contextually equivalent to Ford’s 1977 haul could be picked up by the Clintons with a couple-dozen speeches. The complaints against Ford concerned appearance fees and corporate directorships. Money-laundering, influence-peddling and the tsunami of payola were not part of the bill of particulars. This distaff side of this pair of greasy crooks is the stated choice of north of 40% of the electorate to occupy the president’s chair.

  • “Polygamy and Persecution are one thing, but the above could mean the end of the Republic.”

    At this point I would still assume that the real threats to the Republic come from without and not within. For the last century our country has been very good (not perfect, but very good) in foreseeing both threats and the proper measures to take against those threats. One might be excused if, when contemplating the pursuit of happiness and the pleasure principle, that we are losing our ability to foresee threats. You reap what you sow, and if we sow an unreal vision of life then life will eventually make us pay up.

  • Speaking of threats from without, in the past decade the Supreme Court made a paid of rulings that did impair our ability to deal with such things. I don’t feel like searching for the case names or the years, but in the rough these are:

    1) The Arizona law dealing with illegal immigration – the Court not only struck it down, but introduced language that said a state has no right to self defense in the absence of Federal action. So the majority basically said that states are no longer sovereign entities.

    2) In one of the several rulings over detained terrorists, the Court in effect ruled that the U.S. military must now practice on the battlefield the evidentiary procedures police use in criminal arrests, and that failure to do so could result in prisoners taken on the battlefield being released. So the majority basically said it could assume commander-in-chief responsibilities to itself.

    These were the kind of rulings that Hamilton had in mind when he made his “least dangerous branch” comment. His comment was based on the idea that it was permissible for elected leaders to tell the Court to take a hike. Who ever did, outside of racists such as Andrew Jackson or George Wallace?

  • Sad day for America.
    But polygamy has nothing to do with it.
    And so one of the names of the Lord our God is:

    The God of Abraham (polygamist)
    The God of Isaac (monogamist)
    The God of Jacob (polygamist)

    So if their polygamy was not abhorrent in the sight of God who are we to decide otherwise? Is that not serious presumption? Is that not serious disrespect for these Patriarchs whom – as Christians – we owe so much? Is it then not absolutely scandalous to equate polygamy with such grave sins as adultery, fornication and sodomy?

  • Marriage hasn’t been redefined, it’s America that’s been redefined. The Constitution means nothing now except what a majority of 5 of 9 lawyers can make out of it. No longer law, but conjecture.

  • This decision essentially does for same-sex civil marriage what Roe v. Wade did for abortion. If Roe was intended to “end the debate” on abortion, it certainly didn’t have that effect. If the pro-aborts were hoping Roe would kill off the pro-life movement or drive all discussion of abortion off the public media, they were surely disappointed. Although there are and will certainly continue to be attempts to marginalize, silence or hamper the pro-life movement (e.g. HHS mandate, compelling religious hospitals/health providers to refer for abortions), the pro-life movement is far from dead, more than 40 years after Roe. So I wouldn’t start writing obituaries for traditional marriage just yet, either.

  • Orderly secession. No blood letting necessary.

    Us poor rubes who “cling to their bibles and guns” are conveniently geographically proximate.

    I’m tired of having filth foisted upon us by leftist elites in the northeast and west coast. Time for a divorce. Let them have their sodom and gomorrah unfettered by the objections of the “red states.”

    It’s a win win.

  • These supreme court justices so disgust me, I can not even look at their faces. They wear the smirks of the devil.

  • I wonder how fast the Church will comply–unless the character of its leaders changes radically?
    I expect a lot of nonsense talk (It’s okay now) as they fold, as we did in Connecticut when they put in plan B.

  • Art, it is precisely Iran that I had in mind when I wrote about us not being able to see threats. Why should I care about it when my two husbands can pick up the cannabis at the store on the way home from work?

  • Elaine, I agree in the sense that this is not going away. The problem is that this subject lacks the murderous aspects of abortion. People will adjust to this as long as churches are not directly persecuted.

  • In another sense Elaine is correct: had people stood up in 1973 and overturned Roe with a constitutional amendment the Supreme Court would have been on notice. It might have behaved better on the slippery slope (there I go again PZ)

  • Evil now has complete control. The end game is to wipe the name of Christ and His Church off the face of the earth. They have infiltrated every government, church , corporation, media outlet, educational system,( falsified ) science and invaded all institutions.
    There is no going back, except for the lifesaver thrown to us by King Jesus.
    Our Lady of Fatima. They are scared to death of her. Don’t think they don’t know who she is.
    The Pope ( whoever that is) must consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart with all the Bishops of the World- then SHE will crush the head of the serpent and give us a promised period of conversion and peace. There is no way out- only SHE can help us.

  • The sodomites will now turn to the courts to demand
    the same right to marry in a church of their choosing
    as heterosexual couples. Further, gay Catholics will sue for
    the right and dignity to marry in the Church as any other
    Catholic. Sodomites will also sue for the right and dignity to
    participate in every aspect of church activities. These radical
    changes will not occur before this Sunday. It will take months
    if not years before the radical gays and America’s ruling
    class can achieve their goals. The First Amendment is dead.
    The push to redefine the teachings of Christ by radical
    sodomites via the courts has begun.

  • My eyes stream with tears because others disregard you Law.

    – Psalm 119:136

  • Art, it is precisely Iran that I had in mind when I wrote about us not being able to see threats. Why should I care about it when my two husbands can pick up the cannabis at the store on the way home from work?

    I’m not sure what your point is now. Obama et al cannot deal with Iran and cannot deal with ISIS. They cannot deal with Russia without making buffoons of themselves. These are much more discrete challenges than that posed by China and they are not being met because of the quality of the people who are recruited to the elites of the Democratic Party. It’s exacerbated by Obama / ValJar, whom I suspect suffer from a severe case of injelitence. In the mean time, the political class in general in this country has been conducting itself in ways that produce intense alienation. Ultimately, I think if a critical mass of the attentive public comes to the conclusion that formal political institutions are, in essence, insider scams and their opponents a criminal element with no legitimacy, it’s not going to be pretty. The question is whether this ugliness will be manifested in fire or in putrescence.

    For all that my parents’ contemporaries may have been troublesome in the particular, in the generality, they lived their lives with no wasted motion and without a trace of collective self-infatuation. When their successors began to take their place in charge of businesses, public agencies, and philanthropies was almost co-incident in time with the advent of the elite incompetence which Conrad Black identified.

  • Correct me if I am wrong, but a person cannot be forced to sign his name. I suppose neither can a person be forced to say words. If the priest is praying the gay couple can stand and wait until the politically correct police come. Unfortunately, too many priests were taught that sodomy is not a sin, and now, not a crime. The Supreme Court has said that sodomy is sexual intercourse. Not a single person in all of creation has come into the world through sodomy. Yet, the Court said sodomy makes marriage. Something about tent pegs and holes in the ground comes to mind.
    Nothing has changed except that the arrogance and pride of the gay agenda has been encouraged to defile the citizens.
    I want to say something vulgar, but the gays have said it all. I want to wish evil on the gays, but they already are. I want to tell the gays to go to hell but they are already there….do not sign your name.

  • P.S. If the Court mandates gay marriage, let them perform the ceremony, especially Kennedy. Kennedy can give them all the dignity he has and then create some more dignity for the gays. Kennedy can bake their same sex wedding cakes too. As long as there is a gay bakery, the Christian bakery is not discriminating. People have an innate right to self-preservation and a civil right to self defense. Gays are demanding. A proprietor does not have to sign his name to a contract for a same sex wedding cake that Kennedy refuses to make. Or a church or a priest cannot be forced to sign his name to a marriage license that Kennedy refuses to sign.

  • or sign Bugs Bunny and let the gay agenda sue Bugs Bunny.

  • Thomas wrote, “The Constitution means nothing now except what a majority of 5 of 9 lawyers can make out of it. No longer law, but conjecture.”
    As long ago as 1897, OliverWendell Holmes Jr defined law as “a prediction of what the courts will do.”

  • Why have Kennedy and Sotomajor not been excommunicated? Does the church mean anything it says? Other than global warming crap? Our simple priest has turned down the AC, many parishioners fanning themselves with bulletins.

  • Romans 8:6; “For the wisdom of the flesh is death, but the wisdom of the spirit is Life and Peace.”

    Let God’s Life and Peace continue to reign in your hearts. As the victory is still to come to those who faith and trust are forged in the fire of His Sacred Heart. So we turn the page and await the next opportunity to witness for truth.
    We remember His promise and the grace He bestows wonderfully flow to us from Our Lady, Queen of Victory. Buck up. The War is far from over.

  • 20 years ago I saw this coming, in spite of no sermons on contraception my wife and I went off contraception and embraced NFP, because Catholic schools are only open to families with one or two children through contraception, my four went to public schools where it appears they’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated in ” gay marriage”.

    My advice is, homeschool , and move to the diocese where bishops are not afraid to teach the Catholic faith.

  • If it is marriage it does not need and ought not have the adjective “Gay”. The adjective “gay” separates gay marriage from real marriage. The gay marriage license ought to read and specify gay marriage as opposed to heterosexual marriage.

  • This decision essentially does for same-sex civil marriage what Roe v. Wade did for abortion.


    The trip is going to be terrible, but by forcing it all at once they made it so that the bad effects are more obvious. I grew up around kids whose “parents” were a homosexual couple– when it’s just one, it’s fairly easy to say “oh, that’s just him.” When you can see a pattern, though….

  • I will say this as a final reflection of the past week.  The papal missive looks inane, perhaps irrelevant, in contrast with reality— the loss of freedom, the attack on first principles, and the latest wave of Islamic terrorism.  Papal pronouncements about mass migration caused by CO2 induced global warming seem as they should be….silly.

  • Cthemfly 25.

    Well said.

  • Pinky and Alan…I have read just today that there are some top Democrats who are already talking about pulling the tax exemption from the Churches. How far that will go and how fast is anyone’s guess, but it is already on their lips in Washington.

  • TL M: Why Churches when the judges can perform their same sex marriage ceremonies? Donations, gifts and behests are non-taxable. Talk about removing non-profit status on churches is not for the common good and exhibits rapaciousness and ill will. Discrimination against God and his Faithful.

  • There is no such thing as a Catholic sodomite, since sodomites excommunicate themselves and on that premise alone, the church door is shut to them. Perhaps Cannon law might be read to them.

  • Mary De Voe asks, “Why Churches when the judges can perform their same sex marriage ceremonies?”

    Why require a ceremony at all? The Church required none, until Tametsi in 1563 and Tametsi did not apply to Protestant countries or mission territories?
    In Scotland, until 1st July 1940, the law required no notice, no formality and no record of any kind for a marriage. Like sale, hire, partnership or agency, it required agreement and nothing else.

  • Mary De Voe.

    ” for though we walk in the flesh we do not war according to the flesh for the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications destroying councils and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ.”
    Saint Paul’s 2 Corinthians 10:3-5

    On this feast of Saints Peter & Paul may we forever hopeful in this battle for souls.

  • I have posted this elsewhere, and it may be worth repeating. Fr. Dwight Longenecker introduced me to the Benedict option – http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/05/is-it-time-to-hunker-down.html

    Taking its inspiration from St. Benedict, the Benedict option involves believers joining together in small Christian communities. These “Benedict” communities will serve as refuges where we can live out our Christian faith deliberately and intentionally. In the future, these communities may become strong enough to influence the outside culture and make it safe again for Christianity.

    Practically, the Benedict option may involve giving up nominally high-paying jobs in New York or LA for a simpler life in Kansas or Nebraska. These are nice, Christian-friendly states with room for large families. (In my opinion, small towns have more of the things that make America great and less of the things that make her not so great.) The Benedict option may also involve, depending on family circumstances, choosing home-schooling or private schools for one’s children. And if your children are going to college, think twice before sending them to a top-ranked college that is hostile to Christianity, or even a nominally Christian college that is merely living off their heritage. Instead, encourage your children to go to an authentically Christian college such as Benedictine College, or a Christian-friendly public university such as Texas A&M, which has the best campus ministry in the entire nation.

  • One real difficulty is that we are not allowed (name your authority de jour) to ignore the SC’s corrupt legal decision in the same manner as they ignore the constitution, which alone gave this hybrid monster its birth. There will be severe and grave penalties for any that try–and the Roman Circus masses will cheer.
    In reality, this is not a political agenda as much as it is diabolical, so the war is against Christ, and, as He promised, His followers.
    Hiding in Kansas or Nebraska and Home schooling will be targeted as soon as convenient. Perhaps by then, with the aid of the new moral climate (pun intended), the UN will be pulling our strings.

The Conquered Banner

Friday, June 26, AD 2015

Furling the Flag 2
Furl that Banner, for ’tis weary;
Round its staff ’tis drooping dreary;
Furl it, fold it, it is best;
For there’s not a man to wave it,
And there’s not a sword to save it,
And there’s no one left to lave it
In the blood that heroes gave it;
And its foes now scorn and brave it;
Furl it, hide it–let it rest!

Take that banner down! ’tis tattered;
Broken is its shaft and shattered;
And the valiant hosts are scattered
Over whom it floated high.
Oh! ’tis hard for us to fold it;
Hard to think there’s none to hold it;
Hard that those who once unrolled it
Now must furl it with a sigh.

Furl that banner! furl it sadly!
Once ten thousands hailed it gladly.
And ten thousands wildly, madly,
Swore it should forever wave;
Swore that foeman’s sword should never
Hearts like theirs entwined dissever,
Till that flag should float forever
O’er their freedom or their grave!

Furl it! for the hands that grasped it,
And the hearts that fondly clasped it,
Cold and dead are lying low;
And that Banner–it is trailing!
While around it sounds the wailing
Of its people in their woe.

For, though conquered, they adore it!
Love the cold, dead hands that bore it!
Weep for those who fell before it!
Pardon those who trailed and tore it!
But, oh! wildly they deplored it!
Now who furl and fold it so.

Furl that Banner! True, ’tis gory,
Yet ’tis wreathed around with glory,
And ’twill live in song and story,
Though its folds are in the dust;
For its fame on brightest pages,
Penned by poets and by sages,
Shall go sounding down the ages–
Furl its folds though now we must.

Furl that banner, softly, slowly!
Treat it gently–it is holy–
For it droops above the dead.
Touch it not–unfold it never,
Let it droop there, furled forever,
For its people’s hopes are dead!

Father Abram J. Ryan, Poet-Priest of the Confederacy

Continue reading...

2 Responses to The Conquered Banner

  • This country is finished.

  • One of the great issues in theology is the interplay between freewill and the omnipotence of God. One of my favorite poets, Richard Hovey, saw the Hand of God in the events of American history in his poem Unmanifest Destiny (1898):

    To what new fates, my country, far

    And unforeseen of foe or friend,

    Beneath what unexpected star

    Compelled to what unchosen end.

    Across the sea that knows no beach,

    The Admiral of Nations guides

    Thy blind obedient keels to reach

    The harbor where thy future rides!

    The guns that spoke at Lexington

    Knew not that God was planning then

    The trumpet word of Jefferson

    To bugle forth the rights of men.

    To them that wept and cursed Bull Run,

    What was it but despair and shame?

    Who saw behind the cloud the sun?

    Who knew that God was in the flame?

    Had not defeat upon defeat,

    Disaster on disaster come,

    The slave’s emancipated feet

    Had never marched behind the drum.

    There is a Hand that bends our deeds

    To mightier issues than we planned;

    Each son that triumphs, each that bleeds,

    My country, serves It’s dark command.

    I do not know beneath what sky

    Nor on what seas shall be thy fate;

    I only know it shall he high,

    I only know it shall be great.

    Hovey was born in 1864 in Normal, Illinois, the son of Charles and Harriet Hovey. His father was one of the founders of Illinois State University in Normal, teaching the first classes and serving as President of the University from 1857-1861. Charles Hovey enlisted in the Union Army rising to the rank of Brigadier General of Volunteers with a brevet promotion to Major General.

    Richard Hovey had a brief life, dying after routine abdominal surgery in 1900 at the age of 35. At his death he was professor of English literature at Barnard College and a lecturer at Columbia. He left behind him numerous poems, plays and his unfinished magnum opus, a reworking of the Arthurian Legends in verse. He had completed five of a projected nine volumes at his untimely death. For graduates of Dartmouth, he is probably best remembered for providing the lyrics in 1885 for the school song, which he entitled Men of Dartmouth. Outside of Dartmouth Hovey is largely forgotten today, a victim both of his early death and changing literary fashions. However, I will always remember him fondly for his poem, set forth above, which brings to life elegantly the simple, and true phrase of Lincoln: The Almighty has His own purposes.

    I doubt if God is done with the United States of America yet.